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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2019, 10:52

Here is a concept take a Point class style ship fill in every thing from the bridge to the stern to allow for a role 11 medical bay , ops room , sleeping messing. Next add a 32 meter wide flight deck ( if we are going to fit a flight deck making it 6m wider is not that hard ) forward of the bridge with 3 refuelling points and a side lift to the old main deck capable of taking a Merlin ( note I have done away with flight deck level hangar) this would allow the ship to take 2 ,4, 6 helicopters as needed plus allow vehicles , boats , field guns to be lifted up to the flight deck to be airlifted as needed

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Feb 2019, 12:26

The biggest vehicle this thing is going to probably carry are variants of the JLTV and I doubt we are going to see "Field Guns" deployed form them either. Unless the SF Chinooks go the a modification programme they are not going to be regularly embarked, being limits to mission specific deployments of short duration. We are more likely to see Merlin HC4s and Wildcat aboard, and the aviation facilities will probably be linked to this.

serge750
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby serge750 » 18 Feb 2019, 12:53

I see these ships for lower threat/support scenarios & will be less capable than they could be, smallish forces maybe 100-200 marines or combination special forces max, a helicopter deck that can take 2 x Merlins, hanger to support them, containerized accommodation/mission systems, what they will have (by being a RoRo ferry) is a good amount of space for Vehicles & Grey paint !

In a major op supporting the Albion's they will ferry the vehicles/logistics to support after the initial landings.

I suspose time will tell, be interesting to know when these ships will be inservice?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10353
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Feb 2019, 14:00

Lord Jim wrote:We are more likely to see Merlin HC4s and Wildcat aboard, and the aviation facilities will probably be linked to this.

I agree that the normal carry will be marinised helos, and not too many of them, either. However, being able to operate with two Chinooks should be the dictate to those with ruler/ tape measure, when they go out onto the buying spree; we also have a vehicle for internal carry in our inventory, for deep penetrating strikes. The quick in and out jobs - Op Clockwork Orange?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 14:44

ArmChairCivvy wrote: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.
It's a concern, such vessels sink very very fast.

ArmChairCivvy wrote: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)
Around 500sqm would facilitate that mix. It's not much on a 193m vessel with a 26m beam. Why make it smaller?
- 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....
A Chinook with rotors extended will take up as much space as a triple Merlin hanger. It's incredibly inefficient. With a flight deck as large as being proposed it should be possible to place a lift out of the way to access the deck(s) below the flight deck if necessary. If this Upper Deck was to become a large multipurpose mission space could it actually be cheaper to fit a lift rather than build two enormous deck hangers?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 14:51

Tempest414 wrote:Here is a concept...
I am trying to follow what you are proposing. Do you mean,
- Delete the deck hangers?
- Add a flight deck above the existing Upper deck?
- Add a single lift between the Flightdeck and the Upper deck?
- Add compartments and mission spaces to the full length of the Upper Deck?
- Leave the Main deck and the Tank deck virtually as is?

Am I close?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10353
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Feb 2019, 14:54

Poiuytrewq wrote:Why make it smaller?
I did not mean making the hangar/ deck smaller, but what would be routinely carried. A box-std Merlin used to cost £20m, the ASW version 2 - 2.5 times that - and the marinised Merlins are not box-std either. Even a Wildcat costs £27m... so just 1+1 helos carried 'routinely' will exceed the purchase price of the hull
Poiuytrewq wrote:could it actually be cheaper to fit a lift rather than build two enormous deck hangers?

A good question; working in that way (and talking about the Points) the crane could be retained where it is

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 14:58

Lord Jim wrote:The biggest vehicle this thing is going to probably carry are variants of the JLTV and I doubt we are going to see "Field Guns" deployed form them either.
I suspect you could be right when the LSS is forming part of an LSG but what if the LSS vessels have joined the Amphibious Task Group? It is entirely plausible that could be carrying virtually the full inventory, some of which might need to be underslung in a hurry.

As a minimum, a simple deck hatch and decent deck crane would be a sensible and fairly cheap addition.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Feb 2019, 15:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Here is a concept...
I am trying to follow what you are proposing. Do you mean,
- Delete the deck hangers?
- Add a flight deck above the existing Upper deck?
- Add a single lift between the Flightdeck and the Upper deck?
- Add compartments and mission spaces to the full length of the Upper Deck?
- Leave the Main deck and the Tank deck virtually as is?

Am I close?


Mostly yes

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 16:25

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I did not mean making the hangar/ deck smaller, but what would be routinely carried. A box-std Merlin used to cost £20m, the ASW version 2 - 2.5 times that - and the marinised Merlins are not box-std either. Even a Wildcat costs £27m... so just 1+1 helos carried 'routinely' will exceed the purchase price of the hull
Agreed, but with commercial conversions like Argus for example has that not always been the case?

If, as many suspect, these proposed LSS vessels will effectively replace Argus, maybe it's worth considering what they are replacing.

Here are a few images to give a sense of what the Argus conversion achieved.

The starting point.
image.jpg

Room for Four
image.jpg

How many HiLux's can you fit on that lift?
image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

Medical facilities
image.jpg


These LSS vessels will be very welcome but if they are too simple and too cheap could we be in danger of just cutting again?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Feb 2019, 19:28

How much did HMS Argus finally cost after purchase and conversion. Maybe building two replicas to fill the LSS requirement and also cover the third FSS?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1324
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 18 Feb 2019, 19:40

Speaking of the third SSS would it not be an idea to base the LSS on a modified version ?

Say we choose the concept design that’s been floating around for years couldnt this be a nice fit ?
The talk was that this design was to be 205m - 215m in length and 30m - 32m in beam and built to similar standards to the bays

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 18 Feb 2019, 23:02

Lord Jim wrote:How much did HMS Argus finally cost after purchase and conversion
Around £18m to buy and £45m to convert.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3281
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Feb 2019, 00:23

Ok lets buy two more from scratch.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 00:29

Lord Jim wrote:Maybe building two replicas to fill the LSS requirement and also cover the third FSS?
Something like this?
image.jpg

This concept is only 140m so finding a donor hull around 190m like the Points would allow for the enlargement of the Flightdeck to enable two Chinook landing spots.
image.jpg
Lots of similarities with the original FSS design. The amidships working deck and a 50t crane would be a very useful addition.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 00:30

Lord Jim wrote:Ok lets buy two more from scratch.
Those were 1988 prices :D

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5782
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 19 Feb 2019, 08:55

The Budget for these is going to be tiny, very unlikely to stretch to new builds.

There is a 500 million GBP fund that has to be shared across a handful of projects, including a squadron of drones, at very best we could hope for 100 million per ship but even that sounds too much.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 09:45

shark bait wrote:at very best we could hope for 100 million per ship but even that sounds too much.
I would be slightly more optimistic at between £100m to £150m but even if we split the difference at £125m it's only half the price of a T31. The important thing will be to end up with an innovative design that's maximises capability for a reasonable budget.

A fixed price T31 approach might work well for the LSS.

In the long run making the LSS vessels self escorting would be cheaper than assigning one or two £250m T31's to form a LSG with a Wave but there is little chance it will be considered. Pity.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3220
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Feb 2019, 11:20

shark bait wrote:at very best we could hope for 100 million per ship but even that sounds too much.
Agreed.
Poiuytrewq wrote:In the long run making the LSS vessels self escorting would be cheaper than assigning one or two £250m T31's to form a LSG with a Wave but there is little chance it will be considered. Pity.
Really? I totally disagree here. LSS has no need for self escort. It is there for low or zero threat environments. Only without self-defense, it can be efficient, cheap, and can keep "high readiness". Many many merits are there. Adding armaments will make the LSS very very bad ship. Leave the "tasks under threat" to Bays and Albions, which are designed to cope with some threats.

If LSS is a copy of Bay, it will just "ban" Bays. :thumbup:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 19 Feb 2019, 11:41

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Really? I totally disagree here. LSS has no need for self escort. It is there for low or zero threat environments. Only without self-defense, it can be efficient, cheap, and can keep "high readiness". Many many merits are there. Adding armaments will make the LSS very very bad ship. Leave the "tasks under threat" to Bays and Albions, which are designed to cope with some threats.


This is only your opinion that they will operate in zero threat . But as one is heading for the Pacific where is there worth going that zero threat in that region. For me any ship that has troops and kit on it that is planning on carrying out raids should expect a kick back and there for be armed

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 11:42

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Really? I totally disagree here. LSS has no need for self escort. It is there for low or zero threat environments. Only without self-defense, it can be efficient, cheap, and can keep "high readiness". Many many merits are there. Adding armaments will make the LSS very very bad ship. Leave the "tasks under threat" to Bays and Albions, which are designed to cope with some threats.

If LSS is a copy of Bay, it will just "ban" Bays.
Still trying to make sense of the LSS/LSG concept.

What form will the LSG take? LSS, 1 or 2 T31's, single Wave? That's a lot of crew and expense.

If the LSG is an LSS with 1 or 2 slightly up-gunned RB2's and a Wave dropping by occasionally then it makes more sense.

If the LSS is self escorting and doesn't require an LSG it's the cheapest option of all. Initial build costs aren't the only consideration, long term operating costs and crew allocations are just as important if not more so.

If the LSS operates on solo deployments 95% of the time I agree, self escorting isn't a high requirement but if the LSG is formed on a regular basis it might be worth considering.

I find the LSS/LSG concept very interesting but also highly contradictory. I don't think this concept will be as cheap as some think. The LSS vessel could be cheap and highly effective for SF Ops and HADR but 2 independent forward deployed LSG's isn't going to come cheap.

Also, what is the point building an LSG around a vessel only capable of embarking 2 or 3 helicopters, a company of Marines with 6 or 8 fast craft? Effectively that could be achieved with an Absalon style vessel if stretched to add a second landing spot. In the water for the price of a T31, and able to self escort if required. It's a much cheaper all round option.

This isn't a proposal, just part of fully understanding the LSS/LSG concept.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3220
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 19 Feb 2019, 12:14

Thanks.
Tempest414 wrote:This is only your opinion that they will operate in zero threat . But as one is heading for the Pacific where is there worth going that zero threat in that region. For me any ship that has troops and kit on it that is planning on carrying out raids should expect a kick back and there for be armed
My point is, RN/RFA still has Bays and Albions. LSS does not replace them. Therefore, I think LSS is tasked for something Bay/Albion are NOT tasked.

Among the spectrum of SF operations, there are many case you will see no "kick back". What if the SF is assaulting "drug factory" in Caribbean? How about landing on Andaman Islands to evacuate captured UK citizens (with permission by Indian gov.)? No kick back will be there. Yes, I am more looking it as a SF operations, not a amphibious operation, just because UK has CVF, Albion and Bays for the latter.
Poiuytrewq wrote:What form will the LSG take? LSS, 1 or 2 T31's, single Wave? That's a lot of crew and expense.

If the LSG is an LSS with 1 or 2 slightly up-gunned RB2's and a Wave dropping by occasionally then it makes more sense.

If the LSS is self escorting and doesn't require an LSG it's the cheapest option of all. Initial build costs aren't the only consideration, long term operating costs and crew allocations are just as important if not more so.

If the LSS operates on solo deployments 95% of the time I agree, self escorting isn't a high requirement but if the LSG is formed on a regular basis it might be worth considering.
I agree here. I think (or propose) the "LSS operates on solo deployments, or only with River B2 escort 95% of the time", but can be flexible reinforced by other asset if needed, in the remaining 5% cases. The cheapest solution.
I find the LSS/LSG concept very interesting but also highly contradictory. I don't think this concept will be as cheap as some think. The LSS vessel could be cheap and highly effective for SF Ops and HADR but 2 independent forward deployed LSG's isn't going to come cheap.
Why? A Bay or Wave is single deployed to Caribbean 365 days a year. If needed, they will reinforced by other assets. Why cannot this be a good baseline?
Also, what is the point building an LSG around a vessel only capable of embarking 2 or 3 helicopters, a company of Marines with 6 or 8 fast craft? Effectively that could be achieved with an Absalon style vessel if stretched to add a second landing spot. ...
Absalon type ship is much much expensive than LSS, for sure.

I totally agree LSG needs more discussion.

MOD could have used Bay for LSG, and buy cheap PSV-like ships for HADR and MCMV support, in place. This is the clearly logical solution, which was frequently proposed by many contributors here (e.g. SharkBait-san).

However, they proposed LSS for LSG.

For me, this means, LSS is not required to do any tasks as much as Bays are doing in landing operations.

This is my start point.

I might be wrong, but in that case, I will simply warn "LSS will eventually kill Bay" in SDSR2020.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5782
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 19 Feb 2019, 13:50

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Only without self-defense, it can be efficient, cheap, and can keep "high readiness"

Exactly, for once lets show some restraint and keep it simple stupid.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1591
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 19 Feb 2019, 15:34

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Why? A Bay or Wave is single deployed to Caribbean 365 days a year. If needed, they will reinforced by other assets. Why cannot this be a good baseline?
As a SF platform or for HADR deployments the Bays and the Waves can cope but add the Littoral Strike requirement and they quickly become unsuitable. If forward deployed with multiple helicopters and a company sized EMF neither of the aforementioned platforms are suitable.
shark bait wrote:Exactly, for once lets show some restraint and keep it simple stupid.
No argument. I have been proposing a cheap, lean manned commercially derived platform for a long time. The LSS concept and my preferred Global Patrol Vessel concept are virtually interchangeable. The problem that I forsee is in the LSG part of the concept. The LSG seems to trample all over the possibility of a full time ARG to the point were people will ask why do we need so many platforms?

If I understand what Mr Williamson was proposing correctly we appear to be looking at,

CSG: 1 CVF, 2x T45's, 2x T23/T26's, 1 Tide, 1 SSS, 1 SSN
ARG: 1 CVF, 1x Albion, 1x Bay, 1 Tide, 1 SSS, 2x T23/T31's?
LSG (E): 1 LSS, 1x Wave, 2x T31's ?
LSG (W): 1 LSS, 1x Wave, 2x T31's?

(Feel free to amend as appropriate)

The LSS makes complete sense if its a £35m commercial vessel requiring a £80m to £90m conversion.

Something like a modified Point Class with a hanger big enough for 2 folded Merlins or Chinooks plus 2 or 3 Wildcats. A flightdeck big enough for 2 Chinooks, extensive medical facilities and accommodation for a company sized EMF plus the additional medical and aviation personnel. A generously sized mission area for launching/recovering craft up to CB-90/LCVP size and an aft working deck with a 40t/50t crane. On a Point this should all be possible more or less within an enlarged superstructure and the Upper deck area if a raised flightdeck is fitted as per the released concept. The Main deck and tank deck should be able to retain their existing RoRo capacity and still facilitate the launch of LCAC's via the stern ramp.

I think this makes perfect sense and should be achievable for the budget described above but where does such a vessel fit into a Littoral Strike Group?

Does the LSS need a surge capacity higher than that listed above?

Is an LSG just an un-surged LSS plus one or two escorts that are required due to the LSS operating in an area with a raised threat level? A group that is able to be sustained in a given area for longer periods due to the accompanying Wave?

Is this twin, forward deployed, Littoral Strike Group strategy even viable with current resources? Without increased funding it's hard to see that it is.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 19 Feb 2019, 17:28

Poiuytrewq wrote:If I understand what Mr Williamson was proposing correctly we appear to be looking at,

CSG: 1 CVF, 2x T45s, 2x T23/T26s, 1 Tide, 1 FSS, 1 SSN
LitM: 1 CVF, 1x Albion, 2x Bay, 1x Point, 1 Tide, 2x FSS, 2x T45s, 2x T23/T31s?
LSG (E): 1 LSS, 1x Wave, 1x T31s ?
LSG (W): 1 LSS, 1x Wave, 1x T31s?

Amended.

LSG may have 2x T31 escorts, but only if more than 5 are built.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests