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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 01 Apr 2019, 17:25

Lord Jim wrote:Great for PR but of little help.


I disagree entirely. It's encouraging to see some more novel ideas coming out of the MOD.

With the T31 we see the RN retreating into its comfort zone building gun boats to keep the colonies in check, unfortunately that is totally irrelevant these days.

On the other hand the LSS offers a new approach to the naval domain, one that recognises the future of maritime power probably lies with distributed assets operating across multiple domains, and this is a cheap step to begin that journey. It is a fat simple platform that could be applied to many different roles by tailoring the equipment it carries.

It is exactly what the RN needs to fulfill the many simple roles, and experiment with the future. Also it's the first new thing to happen to the RN is decades, that should be very welcome.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 01 Apr 2019, 17:29

RichardIC wrote:Yup, started with the appointment of the current SoS and it will finish when he clears his desk.

Not really, his predecessor set the wheels in motion by increasing RN presence in the gulf. Williamson is picking up where Fallon left of.

I don't expect that to change either, leadership want to maintain the UK's clout on the international stage, and they won't achieve that being absent in the Indo-Pacific region.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 17:31

Tempest414 wrote:You have be careful when making statements like this


I wasn't making a statement, I was asking a question.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Apr 2019, 17:45

shark bait wrote:I don't expect that to change either, leadership want to maintain the UK's clout on the international stage, and they won't achieve that being absent in the Indo-Pacific region.

Neither do I . Compare to the US (which we are not; neither is the RM to be doing everything that the uSMC is tasked with). However,
- they ran two experiments (two Gulfs: "The" and the Gulf of Guinea, different ships, different missions)
- fused those missions into one, and by 2015 were pontificating about which ship(s) to fit it with
- went differently from the piece I was linking (probably because with the way chosen, more can be afforded, if needed)

That's a decade, in all. I think we are planning to go 3 times faster (with less ambitious goals; to match lesser resources)
- why would this end up n the round "file"?
- is the idea not good? Why not?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Apr 2019, 17:56

There is nothing wrong with looking into new and innovative ideas, but you need to take a step back and think carefully before putting any serious money into them. If these FLSS were being funded by new money I would have less of an issue but as I said we need to get the most out of what we have before going down new paths. I am sure many can come up with ideas of where say £200M could be spent better than the FLSS.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Apr 2019, 18:09

RichardIC wrote:Am I reading this right? Are you now advocating using Bulwark in this Strikething role with a reduced crew that neglects naval damage control standards?
No. I am pointing out that you are not comparing the same thing. Why do you think a Bay has crew of around 100 and Albion around 325? The standards in many areas are massively different. That's not the only consideration however as Albion has many capabilities that are completely unnecessary for a less strenuous patrol deployment for the example. The crucial question is what RN defines as a core crew allocation for an Albion in a general patrol configuration as opposed to a full blown LPD configuration.

One of my main concerns about the FLSS concept is how fast they would sink if any serious damage was sustained. The multi-deck RoRo design makes meaningful damage control very difficult and a core crew of around 35 certainly won't help. Even a realitivly minor collision would result in big trouble.
RichardIC wrote:What makes you think it's plausible? You've mentioned reducing the number of landing craft carried
What do you think all those crew are doing? If you aren't intending to assault a beach and don't have to look after hundreds of marines for extended periods the core crew allocation will be much lower but a certain number will be needed to enable credible damage control to be carried out.
RichardIC wrote:Yup, started with the appointment of the current SoS and it will finish when he clears his desk. Which is when the FLSS project will be filed in the bin.
Are you suggesting that the British are going to retreat back west of Suez if the Defence Secretary changes?
Lord Jim wrote:We desperately need a proper SDR driven by role and commitments more than ever.
Agreed, a long term, fully costed (without efficiencies) and coherent plan is desperately needed. Until we get political stability it's looks unlikely to happen any time soon.
Tempest414 wrote:I think we are looking at a crew of 80 like the Bays
Yes in that region, 80 to 100 core without aviation.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 19:14

Poiuytrewq wrote:Yes in that region, 80 to 100 core without aviation.


OK, 20000 tonne LPD patrol boat with a crew of 80 sounds fine.

My next-door-neighbour is a Sgt Major in the Royal Marines. He's away a lot but I'll run it past him next time he's home and get back to you with the answer.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Apr 2019, 20:54

RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Yes in that region, 80 to 100 core without aviation.


OK, 20000 tonne LPD patrol boat with a crew of 80 sounds fine.
You are aware that Tempest414's quote was regarding the FLSS not an Albion. That's three times your 35 figure.

Here's the full quote to provide the proper context,
Tempest414 wrote:
RichardIC wrote:Am I reading this right? Are you now advocating using Bulwark in this Strikething role with a reduced crew that neglects naval damage control standards?
You have be careful when making statements like this just because the Albion class have a crew of 325 for its primary task does not mean it will need that many for other tasks. Now I am not saying it can be crewed with less or it should however I do know these new FLSS ship will need more than 36 crew to do anything more than move from port to port down to the fact that a Ponit class needs 22 just to shift kit from place to place and they have no boat decks or flight decks fuel and weapons stores , galliey for 200 plus . I think we are looking at a crew of 80 like the Bays
I certainly took it that Tempest414 was talking about 80 core crew for an FLSS.

My next-door-neighbour is a Sgt Major in the Royal Marines. He's away a lot but I'll run it past him next time he's home and get back to you with the answer.
Excellent, that would be extremely useful.

Just for clarity, something along these lines,

- Albion or Bulwark
- Core crew to maintain RN damage control standards.
- All C&C removed that's not necessary for general patrol (that's over 70 workstations)
- All LCU's and LCVP's removed (8 in total)
- 2 or 3 RHIBS embarked
- RUBB hanger installed and single wildcat embarked
- EMF of around 12 to 15

Look forward to the response.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 21:30

You've quoted me but removed reference to supernumaries.

Poiuytrewq wrote:All C&C removed that's not necessary for general patrol (that's over 70 workstations)


Supernumaries

Poiuytrewq wrote:- All LCU's and LCVP's removed (8 in total)


Supernumaries

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Dahedd » 01 Apr 2019, 22:32

How similar are these likely to be the the USNs Ocean Trader (ex MV Cragside)? Its looking at 50 core crew plus 150+ military types

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_C_Ocean_Trader

SW1
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 01 Apr 2019, 22:57

As systems become platform agnostic and put on smaller boats as unmanned system mature and become more capable the ability to have space a flight deck cranes and a dock coupled with an excellent control and communication system will become more important in the ships we have. It will mean systems that maybe deployed from shore or maybe from ships or maybe deployed then controlled from the other side of the world.

I’m not sure why people are getting so caught up in numbers of people no matter what ship type it is, if we’re deploying small boats, istar assets, a/c, raiding teams and commanding it all you will more than 40 people or 80 people on any ship used.

We seem to be in a curious half way house almost like the army and strike brigades. It’s almost like there is a battle of wills going on between people who think the traditional ways are best and some who see a complete different way to do things and were trying to keep everyone happy on a budget that doesn’t allow it.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 03 Apr 2019, 10:53

As a cross over between this thread and the MHCP thread could a buy of 8 150 meter Makassar LPD's under the name MRSS and 6 PSV's work to cover a wide range of duties I see a split something like this

2 x Makassar MRSS paid for from DFiD for HRDA duties ( painted white and green)
2 x Makassar MRSS for FLSS
4 x Makassar MRSS for MHPC (Heavy)

UK Makassar ( Multi role support ships or MRSS)
Cost 70 million pounds
150 meters by 24 meters
Crew 80 - berths for 450 total
Scanter 4100 radar
hangar for 3 Helicopters ( Merlin)
well dock for 1 LCU , 2 LCVP , 1 Mexeflote , 2 CB-90 , Unmanned MCM , Hydrographics , ASW
2 Davits for LCVP, CB-90, Ribs
Armament 3 x 30mm , 1 Phalanx as needed

6 x PSV's for MHPC

UK PSV MHPC
90 meters by 15 meters
cost 60 million pounds
crew 40 - berths for 110 total
Scanter 4100 radar
hangar for 1 Wildcat plus 4 Hero UAV's
working deck for unmanned MCM , Hydrographics , ASW
Armament 3 x 30mm

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 03 Apr 2019, 11:26

How can we handle the crew, 126 each for Makassar-class LPD?

#May be thread is not good. Shall better be at MHC thread?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 03 Apr 2019, 11:37

donald_of_tokyo wrote:How can we handle the crew, 126 each for Makassar-class LPD?

#May be thread is not good. Shall better be at MHC thread?


Maybe you did not read what I said i.e each UK Makassar MRSS would have a core crew of 80 and a price tag of 70 million pound or 92 million dollars close to 2 time that of a standard Makassar LPD

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 03 Apr 2019, 11:49

Tempest414 wrote:Maybe you did not read what I said i.e each UK Makassar MRSS would have a core crew of 80 and a price tag of 70 million pound or 92 million dollars close to 2 time that of a standard Makassar LPD
Sorry, but why your UK Makassar MRSS having more equipment than standard Bay can be operated with such a few crew? In other words, if it is only "core" crew, how many crews in addition do we need to "use" it?

Current crew of 34-45 on MCMVs includes many MCM specialists, not just ship handing. As the maintenance load of the MCM team will only increase, not decrease, when UK moves to drone-based MCM tactics, more crew will be needed there = on the MCM team.

Also, with well-dock and many additional equipments, its maintenance load will be much higher than Point-like FLSS. As FLSS has zero maintenance cost allocated (one-shot equipment budget only), how are you going to operate/maintain them?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 04 Apr 2019, 09:53

Relevant to recent discussions.

A useful visual illustration of the space taken up by a single unfolded Chinook compared to four folded Merlins. Seen here in QE's hanger.
image.jpeg
If the FLSS is to embark a single Merlin and a single Wildcat as a baseline then I think there is a strong argument to include a hanger large enough to fit an unfolded Chinook too. If not where does the Wildcat/Merlin combo go if an unfolded Chinook needs to be hangered? I don't think this is excessive in any way, simply a practical solution to a practical problem. Adding a 400sqm storage area at the rear of the hanger should be perfectly possible both practically and cost effectively on a 208m vessel such as the MRV. This would allow for up to 3 Merlins to be secured without maintainence clearances.

A better solution remains powered folding rotors for the Chinooks in addition to an unfolded Chinook.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 04 Apr 2019, 12:03

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Maybe you did not read what I said i.e each UK Makassar MRSS would have a core crew of 80 and a price tag of 70 million pound or 92 million dollars close to 2 time that of a standard Makassar LPD
Sorry, but why your UK Makassar MRSS having more equipment than standard Bay can be operated with such a few crew? In other words, if it is only "core" crew, how many crews in addition do we need to "use" it?

Current crew of 34-45 on MCMVs includes many MCM specialists, not just ship handing. As the maintenance load of the MCM team will only increase, not decrease, when UK moves to drone-based MCM tactics, more crew will be needed there = on the MCM team.

Also, with well-dock and many additional equipments, its maintenance load will be much higher than Point-like FLSS. As FLSS has zero maintenance cost allocated (one-shot equipment budget only), how are you going to operate/maintain them?


My view is 2 fold first off as I see it with the move to unmanned systems we need to move to having mission crews who operate the unmanned systems allowing ships to be core crewed. This could take the form of a 30 man crew operating a 2 boat Unmanned MCM system 10 for for operation C&C and 20 for Maintenance and system fitting.

Point 2 is that a Makassar class cost 45 million dollars as is I am putting forward buying a 150 meter Makassar class for 92 million dollars the extra 47 million dollars pay for the extra 25 meters and larger hangar plus a fair bit of automation. At this time we are deploying 1 Bay class and 4 MCMV to the gulf with around 250 to 300 men and women. what I am putting forward is a future Makassar MRSS which could deploy in the MHPC haevy role with 80 core crew and 2 unmanned MCM teams ( i.e 4 boats and 60 crew ) plus a embarked Wildcat team and still have room to embark a SF team and it kit if needed you would not use anymore crew

Now the next step is a push but if as I have put forward the RN were to go with five 150m Makassar MRSS 2 for the FLSS and 3 for the MHPC heavy roles plus 2 more were paid for by DSiF and operated in the HDRA role we could see 3 of these ships forward deployed East of Suez which in times of war could see these 3 ships very quickly re-role to carry 9 to 12 helicopters , 12 LCVP's and 750 to 1000 troops

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 04 Apr 2019, 15:47

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, with well-dock and many additional equipments, its maintenance load will be much higher than Point-like FLSS. As FLSS has zero maintenance cost allocated (one-shot equipment budget only), how are you going to operate/maintain them?


No ship has zero maintenance cost allocated or are you saying that we will get 2 FLSS and use the until they break down and then walk off and leave them where they are. No of cause we maintain them.

What leads you to think that a Point class FLSS will be that much cheaper to maintain than a Makassar LPD once you have fitted a hangar , Davits and all the kit needed to do the job being put forward it will still have a hoofing great stern ramp , hanger , davits , fight deck , galley , role 11 med bay , engines , gen sets and so on that all needs looking after

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 04 Apr 2019, 16:11

Tempest414 wrote:No ship has zero maintenance cost allocated or are you saying that we will get 2 FLSS and use the until they break down and then walk off and leave them where they are. No of cause we maintain them.
I am just saying the maintenance cost for FLSS is not budgeted, because it is a "one shot" equipment cost. This means, we need to cut something else to provide their maintenance cost (e.g. disbanding RFA Argus, or a Wave), not saying they will have no maintenance cost. I hope it is clear?
What leads you to think that a Point class FLSS will be that much cheaper to maintain than a Makassar LPD once you have fitted a hangar , Davits and all the kit needed to do the job being put forward it will still have a hoofing great stern ramp , hanger , davits , fight deck , galley , role 11 med bay , engines , gen sets and so on that all needs looking after
Because you think Makassar LPD is much capable than point-class FLSS.

First of all, well dock is pretty much maintenance heavy and expensive than stern ramp for sure. Other than that, maintenance crew will be needed as much as the capabilities increase.

Davits for boats is relatively simple. Helicopter hangar without support equipment is relatively cheap. But you are right, it needs good fire fighting capabilities, ventilations, lights, cranes, which needs maintenance.

I think maintenance of them will be provided by the RM team for davits and RAF team for helos = the passengers themselves.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Apr 2019, 09:27

shark bait wrote:It is a fat simple platform that could be applied to many different roles by tailoring the equipment it carries.

It is exactly what the RN needs to fulfill the many simple roles, and experiment with the future. Also it's the first new thing to happen to the RN is decades, that should be very welcome.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the 'big, fat' as we will need to replicate the capabilities of one of these
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... 70x410.jpg
while trading speed for endurance (45 days upfront, and the same again with a pre-planned, at sea replenishment)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- they ran [the USN] two experiments (two Gulfs: "The" and the Gulf of Guinea, different ships, different missions)
- fused those missions into one

Poiuytrewq wrote:- Albion or Bulwark
- Core crew to maintain RN damage control standards.

In my view overkill for the intended mission
- not that they would not be good at it
SW1 wrote:We seem to be in a curious half way house almost like the army and strike brigades.

... or well on our way to that 'house'?
Poiuytrewq wrote:Adding a 400sqm storage area at the rear of the hanger should be perfectly possible both practically and cost effectively on a 208m vessel such as the MRV. This would allow for up to 3 Merlins to be secured without maintainence clearances.

- a nice bonus from big&fat
- not mission creep, but ability to provide/ plan for a surge capability

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 05 Apr 2019, 11:20

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In my view overkill for the intended mission - not that they would not be good at it
Agreed, complete overkill for APT(N) and APT(S) but what's the alternative? A £250m T31 with up to 120 crew? Which would be cheaper? Add in the fact that keeping Bulwark in extended readiness still costs money and the reactivation refit for Albion was far from cheap and it starts to make financial sense as long as the core crew requirement for the second Albion can be brought down to a frigate level. Alternating a Bay, Wave and the second Albion through the Caribbean and South Atlantic would cover it pretty effectively and free up other assets to deploy elsewhere.

Covering APT(N) and APT(S) without a T31 then gives the option of lowering the numbers of the first batch of T31's to four and either increasing the unit price to an average of £315 each or build the first two T31's at £250m and the remaining two T31's at £375m each. Arrowhead 140's at £375m each would be an attractive option and would allow for a good baseline to be established for any second batch. First and foremost I really don't see the need for £250m T31's regularly patrolling APT(N) and APT(S).

As far as the second Albion is concerned it could be use it or lose it. Why not make the most of what we have?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- a nice bonus from big&fat
- not mission creep, but ability to provide/ plan for a surge capability
It seems like a pragmatic solution to a practical problem. I don't even regard it as surge capacity although it could be used as such. These FLSS vessels need to be super flexible and if the hanger can double up as a multipurpose mission space with direct access to the 30t deck crane all the better.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 05 Apr 2019, 11:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:In my view overkill for the intended mission - not that they would not be good at it
Agreed, complete overkill for APT(N) and APT(S) but what's the alternative? A £250m T31 with up to 120 crew? Which would be cheaper? Add in the fact that keeping Bulwark in extended readiness still costs money and the reactivation refit for Albion was far from cheap and it starts to make financial sense as long as the core crew requirement for the second Albion can be brought down to a frigate level. Alternating a Bay, Wave and the second Albion through the Caribbean and South Atlantic would cover it pretty effectively and free up other assets to deploy elsewhere.

Covering APT(N) and APT(S) without a T31 then gives the option of lowering the numbers of the first batch of T31's to four and either increasing the unit price to an average of £315 each or build the first two T31's at £250m and the remaining two T31's at £375m each. Arrowhead 140's at £375m each would be an attractive option and would allow for a good baseline to be established for any second batch. First and foremost I really don't see the need for £250m T31's regularly patrolling APT(N) and APT (S).


To me this makes a lot of sence by reducing the T31 numbers to 4 would allow a better over frigate to be built, while also making it harder to scrap one of the Albion’s as both would be in use. This not only shores up our current amphibious capability but also protects any need for future replacements.

The big question to be put forward would be what could an Albion do in these roles that an T31 ( as currently planed ) couldn’t and viceverser

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Apr 2019, 12:16

First of all, how less the Bulwark can be manned without C&C and reduced damage control, is not clear. I guess, 150 at minimum as a core-crew (only ship handling) ? A ship designed with large manpower cannot be lean manned easily. Even the basic choice of design differs (Bay has a propulsion kit with less maintenance, but also with less shock resistivity, compared to Albions).

Secondly, APT-N/S is really so much needed?
- RN has been gapping APT-S for long. Do we really need it?
- Also, there are many assets which can be used for APT-N.
-- FLSS
-- 2 RFA Waves are lacking peace time jobs (also their crew?),
-- River B2 is mentioned sometimes to be deployed for APT-N
-- in addition to a Bay allocated there now.

Even though the first Sea Load mentioned the manpower shortage getting better, we still see 2 escorts in extended readiness, on top of the ~5 T23 in LIFEX = with little crew. RN is in short of 1000-1500 trained personnel. The situation stopped being worse, but not yet recovered.

So, if ever to re-activate the 2nd Albion (Bulwark), I propose the "source" of manpower may come from:
- disbanding and selling the two Waves (80 crew to solve the RFA manpower, and 80 crew for Bulwark?)
- disbanding 2 Hunts and 2 Sandowns to be replaced with the Bulwark-revived, to provide ~70 crew for ship handling and ~90 crew for "4 sets of MCM drone systems".

This will make Bulwark a "specialist MCM drone mother ship, which can be converted back into LPD if MCM need is less and landing need is high" (say, rapid deployment to Norway)? :D

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Apr 2019, 12:22

Jake1992 wrote:The big question to be put forward would be what could an Albion do in these roles that an T31 ( as currently planed ) couldn’t and viceverser
Many.
- T31 is a low signature (stealth), frigate standard (good damage control) hull with good set of self defense armaments.
- Albion is a large (not stealthy = decoys inefficient), so-so standard damage control hull (but the large vehicle deck makes it virtually a "match box" compared to a frigate), with only 2 CIWS for self defense. Needs huge fuel, many man power, but capable to carry many assets in her well-dock and davits.

Other than "existing" and "show the flag", the two assets provide completely different effects.

But, the point is, at least in APT-S, "existing" and "show the flag" are the only two requirements, I'm afraid.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 05 Apr 2019, 12:24

donald_of_tokyo wrote:This will make Bulwark a "specialist MCM drone mother ship, which can be converted back into LPD if MCM need is less and landing need is high" (say, rapid deployment to Norway)?


This is what I put forward with the Makassar LPD and you no because it has a well dock


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, birrell715, Varus and 14 guests