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: 1453
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 11 Feb 2019, 21:39

Jake1992 wrote:Why not a Karel Doorman as the base design them ?
Probably cost prohibitive.

A Point based conversion should be as cheap as you can get but the steel beach like on the KD would be a useful addition as would the deck cranes.

The modified Point design that I prefer is slightly less ambitious but probably a bit more capable.
image.jpg
Again a deck is added to facilitate the carrying of 2 mexefloates and provide accommodation for an EMF of around 450. The main hanger is a multipurpose mission space of around 1200sqm with a further double hanger in the superstructure for the aft flight deck. The misson space could embark and deploy LCM's, LCVP's and CB90's with LCAC'S deploying from the stern ramp. Twin 40t deck cranes are also present.

This would solve the ship to shore connector issue and then the internal configuration could be divided up as deemed necessary.

To give an idea of how the internal space could be configured, this is the Irving Maritime Support Ship, again based on a Point style vessel. This version is primarily designed to assist with HADR operations.
image.jpg
In my opinion this version lacks Aviation capacity and although the deck cranes are present again no sign of ship to shore connectors.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Feb 2019, 22:14

Repulse wrote: those boats in Twitter picture look a bit like ARCIMS.
You may need to be able to breach a minefield to get ashore by any other means than helicopters.
Lord Jim wrote:I do not think these ships will threaten the Albions as they are not in the same class or have the same capabilities. The number of embarked troops will be significantly less
Agree; they will bring the "company-sized" ops that have often been mentioned.
Poiuytrewq wrote: Three landing spots have been created but are the forward and aft hangers connected?
I see two? And is there a forward hangar?
Poiuytrewq wrote: no existing space has been lost.
The boat handling takes quite a chunk on both sides; how would you propose to bring the below hinted number into play - rather than just being transported?
Poiuytrewq wrote: plenty of room to embark many dozens of CB90 sized craft


Poiuytrewq wrote: LCAC's could also be launched from the stern ramp.
We tend to underuse the ones (which are more for patrol, than landings, size wise) we have, so this would be a good feature (and not as weather constrained as using/ loading mexeflotes off the rear ramp.

Repulse wrote: max effective number was 6 for a “non-flattop” ship.
Were they to be marinised Merlins, then a company (in their boots) to ashore in two lifts... we only have so many Merlins (but plenty of Chinooks, if they can be based on carriers. If these ships will be about presence, then a carrier would not be in the vicinity that often)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 11 Feb 2019, 22:34

Repulse wrote: max effective number was 6 for a “non-flattop” ship.
Were they to be marinised Merlins, then a company (in their boots) to ashore in two lifts... we only have so many Merlins (but plenty of Chinooks, if they can be based on carriers. If these ships will be about presence, then a carrier would not be in the vicinity that often)[/quote]

This is why for me it’s key to marinise at least some of our chinook fleet no only for these but for future LHDs/LPDs/LSDs and do save massives of space on the QEs.

How much would it cost to fully marinise say 15 chinooks ? Well never use more then that in any amphibious set up

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1822
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 11 Feb 2019, 23:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:
RichardIC wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Lacking access to twitter, is this confirmed that they are modifying existing ones in service to the RFA?



No, it's me speculating. But there's no new money - if there were Gavin would have shouted it from the rooftops. So it's going to mean recycling existing resources, which I'm speculating means that dedicated to the existing PFI.
Apparently it's being being funded from the new 'Transformation Fund'



The Transformation Fund stands at £160m with a further £340m to (hopefully) follow next year.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... P-8469.pdf

It's not a lot but if it's new money it's welcome all the same.


Is it new money? Is the transformation fund part of the 2% budget, or an additional fund on top of the 2%?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1822
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 11 Feb 2019, 23:15

Timmymagic wrote:
RichardIC wrote:There's no new money! The Transformation Fund comes from within the existing MoD budget.


It's worth noting that the Ocean Trader cost c£60m to convert to its role as well. No doubt the US conversion is on a more ambitious scale and complexity than a UK ship, but its hard to see how much cheaper it could get than that.


Depending the timeframes, could this possibly be something to keep Rosyth or other years busy, on the cheap, until the FSS and T31 production kicks in? Do we know anything another time frame for these 2 new conversions?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Feb 2019, 08:39

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I see two? And is there a forward hangar?
There is two main landing spots that appear to Chinook capable forward of the hanger doors. There also appears to be a secondary landing spot aft of the superstructure. Dimensionally it is bit tight to be Merlin capable so could it be a dedicated drone/UAV launch and recovery area?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The boat handling takes quite a chunk on both sides; how would you propose to bring the below hinted number into play - rather than just being transported?
The ideal setup would be a full length internal gantry crane such as seen here on the Venator 90 concept.


Albion has a similar setup but the Damen Crossover series makes full use of the system via side doors like Venator.
image.jpg
Once the craft have been positioned in the mission bay via the overhead gantry crane a Type 26 setup could be used to deploy them maximising the available space.
image.jpg

We don't know the internal configuration of that Upper Deck area yet but the setup on the initial concept looks to be an incredibly inefficient use of space.
image.jpg

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote wrote:LCAC's could also be launched from the stern ramp.

We tend to underuse the ones (which are more for patrol, than landings, size wise) we have, so this would be a good feature (and not as weather constrained as using/ loading mexeflotes off the rear ramp.
Could LCAC's actually be the ship to shore connectors? Interesting prospect.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Feb 2019, 08:54

Poiuytrewq wrote:could it be a dedicated drone/UAV launch and recovery area?

Would be a good use of it - and make persistent surveillance possible/ cheaper.
Poiuytrewq wrote:ship to shore connectors? Interesting prospect.
There are areas where hovercraft, of any size, have unique advantages (though they are expensive to operate)
- river deltas (also the muddy swamps that go with them)
- (partially) frozen-over areas... now that we are taking the Arctic seriously

Yes, the kind of crane arrangement described would make these ships "force protection bases" when operating as part of a larger force; then swap the Merlins for Wildcats (which are due to get their missiles next year)

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1142
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 12 Feb 2019, 11:35

Given the wording that the MOD want to keep the Albion's & Bays and adding the new Littoral strike ships the only way I can see this working now is to sell the Wave class and Argus freeing up 240 crew and add the money to the program. I see these ships costing 200 to 250 million each

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Feb 2019, 11:44

Tempest414 wrote:I see these ships costing 200 to 250 million each

It's worth noting that the Ocean Trader cost c£60m to convert to its role


Four conversions, for the cost of one new?
- I would convert 2 and put the rest of the money (for one whole, new) in "systems" to optimise them

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 464
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 12 Feb 2019, 11:52

dmereifield wrote:Is it new money? Is the transformation fund part of the 2% budget, or an additional fund on top of the 2%?


... and this is the important question. No it's not. It's like moving some of your small change from your left pocket to your right pocket and calling your right pocket your transformation pocket.

So while everyone gets excited about ever-more elaborate concepts, get this.... there is no new money.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Feb 2019, 12:10

Tempest414 wrote:Given the wording that the MOD want to keep the Albion's & Bays and adding the new Littoral strike ships the only way I can see this working now is to sell the Wave class and Argus freeing up 240 crew and add the money to the program.
Hopefully not but it's definitely possible. It's clear Brazil think they have at least one Wave in the Bag already but time will tell.

I see these ships costing 200 to 250 million each
Given what is being proposed and considering the commercial construction standards involved I think you could build new vessels in the UK for less than £200m each.

Point based vessels are very very cheap.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5711
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 12 Feb 2019, 12:36

Look at the price the Americans paid for theirs; 145 million USD, and that includes some operational costs.

Apparently the transformation fund has around 300 million GBP next year so feasible so allocate 100m a year for the LSS.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 12 Feb 2019, 14:16

IMHO, it looks to me this is preparing for the past conflict ( Somalia and similar ) instead for future ( Rusia/China ). :thumbdown:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1142
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 12 Feb 2019, 16:10

shark bait wrote:Look at the price the Americans paid for theirs; 145 million USD, and that includes some operational costs.

Apparently the transformation fund has around 300 million GBP next year so feasible so allocate 100m a year for the LSS.


even if they do end up costing us 200 million each they will be a bargain for me some of things I would like to see these ships laid out for are

flight deck capable of operating 2 Chinook helicopters
Hangar capable of holding 5 Merlin's
a lift to the flight deck to allow field guns and the like to air lifted ( a long shot but maybe for small helicopters / UAVs to be stored below )
scanter 4100 radar to allow good area insight
6 x davits able to lower anything up to a LCVP
room for up to 500 RM
armament 1 x Phalanx , 1 x SeaRam , 2 x 30mm

Also due to there role they will need some sort of C&C

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Feb 2019, 17:47

Tempest414 wrote:Hangar capable of holding 5 Merlin's
a lift to the flight deck to allow field guns and the like to air lifted ( a long shot but maybe for small helicopters / UAVs to be stored below )


The odd (5) number may come to play with the rest of the 'rqrmnt'
- have that lift to the flight deck in the aft
- normally used for UAV ops
- but big enough to take a Merlin up
- and also going one deck further down, for any payloads to be brought up: like an LG, to be underslung

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Feb 2019, 17:56

With talk of UAV flight decks being merlin size might be sencible.
I’d like see us invest in developing the Bell V-247 with the USMC, this tilt rotar uav is based on theV-280 ( similar size to a merlin ) but can come in AEW format for the carrier 3 can confortably give 24hr coverage and an attack format which is said to be similar to a predator uva but with vertical take off and landing.

The AEW for the carriers could be s better fit than the current crows nest while freeing up merlons for other jobs and the attack format could come in very handy for SF off the new LSS vessels.

The aim is for a $20m unit cost

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 12 Feb 2019, 19:06

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, the kind of crane arrangement described would make these ships "force protection bases" when operating as part of a larger force; then swap the Merlins for Wildcats (which are due to get their missiles next year)

abc123 wrote:IMHO, it looks to me this is preparing for the past conflict ( Somalia and similar ) instead for future ( Rusia/China ). :thumbdown:


will this allow any future LPD to ditch the davits for lcvp, and focus on docks for caiman90?
the need for size and speed to achieve mass at distance seems to preclude any use of mini landing craft for future operation requiring 6000lims and 1700 strong atfg.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 12 Feb 2019, 21:20

abc123 wrote:IMHO, it looks to me this is preparing for the past conflict ( Somalia and similar ) instead for future ( Rusia/China ). :thumbdown:


Disagree, a paper / half-arsed T31 frigate is trying to build a force for yesterday’s priorities. These multirole platforms if carefully (not necessarily) expensively designed will provide capabilities for all spectrums of warfare. What is clear to me that any future Russia / China conflict is unlikely to be direct on land, but through 3rd country proxies, the sea or “unclaimed” territories such as the Artic.
"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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Location: Australia

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby R686 » 12 Feb 2019, 21:35

abc123 wrote:IMHO, it looks to me this is preparing for the past conflict ( Somalia and similar ) instead for future ( Rusia/China ). :thumbdown:


Western nations have been waiting for the big one since 1947, hardly think it is gearing up for past conflict, but the war on terror has taken away the focus

With more platforms it makes a guessing game for even peer nations, where they will strike, they can way to make use of a feint if need be, keep em guessing is the name of the game

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1822
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 12 Feb 2019, 22:02

RichardIC wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Is it new money? Is the transformation fund part of the 2% budget, or an additional fund on top of the 2%?


... and this is the important question. No it's not. It's like moving some of your small change from your left pocket to your right pocket and calling your right pocket your transformation pocket.

So while everyone gets excited about ever-more elaborate concepts, get this.... there is no new money.


Bugger, I feared as much

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1453
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Feb 2019, 22:04

Tempest414 wrote:even if they do end up costing us 200 million each they will be a bargain...
At £200m we are approaching Bay territory which is a superior platform in virtually every way apart vehicle capacity. However to ensure the Albions and Bays don't get cut a well dock on the LSS is highly unlikely. A Bay with a steel beach or stern ramp?
Tempest414 wrote:a lift to the flight deck to allow field guns and the like to air lifted ( a long shot but maybe for small helicopters / UAVs to be stored below )
Great Idea, a few light helicopters like this :D
image.jpg

If a lift proves to be cost prohibitive would a 30t/40t crane and deck hatch work almost as well? No good for helicopters but fine for artillery and small vehicles?
image.jpg

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- have that lift to the flight deck in the aft
- normally used for UAV ops
- but big enough to take a Merlin up
- and also going one deck further down, for any payloads to be brought up: like an LG, to be underslung
I think this is a great idea and not something I had considered previously. :clap:
jedibeeftrix wrote:will this allow any future LPD to ditch the davits for lcvp, and focus on docks for caiman90?
the need for size and speed to achieve mass at distance seems to preclude any use of mini landing craft for future operation requiring 6000lims and 1700 strong atfg.
How about something in between?

Could davit mounted LCM's have a role?
image.jpg
Maybe a modernised version that is a bit faster and carry a load up to around 40t like Ajax whilst keeping the weight of the unloaded craft to no more than 40t? I'm sure BMT could come up with something.

The OTH conundrum is interesting. The caiman 90 seems to be the hot favourite but could a larger landing craft design traveling slightly slower but carrying 3 times as much actually be a better option? The increased length and displacement would certainly help the sea keeping qualities, an important consideration for OTH Ops.

Dimensionally about half the size of Albions well dock so that 2 such craft could fit in side by side. A single such craft should also be able to fit in a Bay. A payload capacity of around 250t would be ideal allowing 3 MBT's to be transported at a time.

A bit like the Caiman 200 but with the unnecessary superstructure removed to achieve the 250t payload target.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 12 Feb 2019, 23:05

seems a bit risky to reduce resilience down from eight to four craft to support an amphibious operation.
you can lose an lcu, but not an lct which the ambitions we're talking about.

re: lcm - not sure trying to create an over engineered lcvp/lcu hyrbid is worth it, simply to use davits rather than a dock.

caiman 90 still seems like a winner for mass OTH.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Feb 2019, 23:27

The whole OTH by anything other than by Helicopter seems a capability not needed by the UK. We are not going to be conducting large scale assaults over the beach, we are simply not equipped or trained for it. Current plans are for nothing larger than a single Commando plus support. The initial landing would probably be helicopter with the task of sanitising the area and allowing amphibious ships to move in closer to unload using landing craft of other systems.

But the LSS is not for this role, it seems to be more a forward operating base for raiding style operations either by helicopter or by sea. IT would be a ideal platform from which the RM could conduct coastal operations up and down the Norwegian coast for example, stationing itself in Fiords for example.

Calling them "Strike" ships is in a similar vain to calling the Army's new formations "Strike" Brigades. It sounds exciting and is great for the PR compared to calling them Mechanised or even Motorised. A better name for these new platforms would be something along the lines of Littoral Operations Support Platforms.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 13 Feb 2019, 06:10

Yeah, Russians or Chinese will probably just watch this LS walking up-down the coast and will do nothing. Come on, even the Houthies wouldn't allow you that.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 13 Feb 2019, 07:30

Lord Jim wrote:A better name for these new platforms would be something along the lines of Littoral Operations Support Platforms.

Yes - they do seem to be akin to the originally-planned "seabasing" versions of the SSS. primarily there to act as a mothership/ supplies transshipment point (and good for HADR as a result), but also capable of acting independently on RM/ SF missions. If they come to pass, I expect they will be much used (even if we hear little about it outside of HADR missions).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digger22, donald_of_tokyo, Tempest414 and 10 guests