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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2019, 09:07

Poiuytrewq wrote:Versatility is the key.

If the FLSS hits the water in the next two years it should become operational by around 2023/2024.


I agree about versatility. Persistence is also important as if you are not present at all, then you don't count... and ticking this point (in more than one location, at times) needs the mentioned cost efficiency.
- a conversion approach could be quicker than what is stated above

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 27 Sep 2019, 09:32

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- a conversion approach could be quicker than what is stated above
To hit the £100m target a conversion is the only option.

I think it is a legitimate question to ask, what will be the priority in SDSR 2025?

1. More £250m T31
2. More £300m to £350m T31
3. More £100m converted FLSS
4. More £250m new build FLSS
5. More T26 and more T31
6. More T26 and no more T31
7. More OPV's
8. MH(P)C

Given that, in its current guise, the T31 will be one of the least well armed 21st century Frigates in the world maybe RN would prefer to spend any available cash elsewhere. Maybe a self escorting hybrid T31/FLSS based on Absalon will be preferred in the end if the LSG concept proves to be too vulnerable and too costly.

It will be interesting to see how RN balances the requirements and aspirations of HMG and still operate within the budget envelope provided.

The current focus is on Iranian gun boats but by 2025 the world will have moved on. I suspect securing and striking in the Littoral will continue to gain importance in the coming years ahead.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Sep 2019, 10:06

Poiuytrewq wrote: priority in SDSR 2025?
We are obviously too busy with other :) things to bother with a 2020 round... and quite rightly so, as the available funding will be determined by the outcome of these "other things".

But it would be rude not to answer the question poised: here goes
Poiuytrewq wrote:5. More T26 and more T31


Poiuytrewq wrote:The current focus is on Iranian gun boats but by 2025 the world will have moved on. I suspect securing and striking in the Littoral will continue to gain importance
one and the same thing, except that striking the littoral of the most populous country in the Gulf region is not the most obvious answer to securing the littoral along its coasts (counting each way from Hormuz as two different coasts).

But going back to what the 2020 or 2025 SDSR will need to consider as a starting point is what Simon Nixon wrote in The Times of yesterday:
Brexiteers have "failed to anticipate the changed geopolitical context with Europe (also the parts this side of the 'moat' - my addition) increasingly caught in the crossfire of rising tensions between an assertive China and a protectionist America"
- so: Britain's place in the world (the answer, too, might be different for the UK... or R-UK)?
or, "who cares" about the UK in the world of the "sovereign individual" :think:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Sep 2019, 10:45

Lord Jim wrote:We need to be very careful that the rush to establish Littoral Strike Groups does not weaken our ability to conduct other types of operation that are part of our core priorities and capabilities. The Bay's and Points are vital in our ability to move a combat Brigade by sea and spreading these platforms around the world will significantly reduce our ability to carry out such an operation. Given the ground force component of any LSG is likely to be no more than a Company sized formation of Royal Marines and a contingent of Special Forces, why does a FLSS need to be accompanied by a Bay and a Point? To this end I cannot see the need for our planned LSD to comprise of more than;
1 x FLSS
1 x T-31
1 x Wave
The last platform would probably be a regional assets available to support the LSG during transit over longer distances, and so would be assigned when and where it is needed.


As I have said before I feel a EoS command made up of

4 x type 31
1 x FLSS
1 x Bay
1 x Wave
1 x Point
4 x MCM
would allow the RN and UK to conduct operations through the Gulf and Indo-Pacific along with our allies this would also allow the rest of the RN to get on with operations in the Atlantic , Baltic and Med

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 27 Sep 2019, 11:01

Poiuytrewq wrote:To hit the £100m target a conversion is the only option.


As i have said for 100 million pounds each we could get 2 new 160 meter Makassars LPD's configured how we want

given the Tarlac class ( a sub class of Makassar class ) cost 45 million dollars and is 125 meters by 22 meters has a hangar for 2 medium helicopters and a well dock it could also be a good ship for MHC

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 27 Sep 2019, 13:30

So the UK could have 1 bay and 1 type 23 east of suez as the littoral strike group east and the equivalent west. Type 23 to be replaced by type 31 in due course. Bay can take maritime security commandos and unmanned MCM boats and staff.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2192
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 27 Sep 2019, 15:01

SW1, I’d personally add RFA Victoria to the EoS LSG and RFA Argus and a Wave Class to the WoS one, but in principle completely agree.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Sep 2019, 10:17

SW1 wrote:So the UK could have 1 bay and 1 type 23 east of suez as the littoral strike group east and the equivalent west. Type 23 to be replaced by type 31 in due course. Bay can take maritime security commandos and unmanned MCM boats and staff.


Is this on top of the Bay and T-23 that are already in the Gulf if not are saying that they should drop what they are doing and become the LSG

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 28 Sep 2019, 10:20

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:So the UK could have 1 bay and 1 type 23 east of suez as the littoral strike group east and the equivalent west. Type 23 to be replaced by type 31 in due course. Bay can take maritime security commandos and unmanned MCM boats and staff.


Is this on top of the Bay and T-23 that are already in the Gulf if not are saying that they should drop what they are doing and become the LSG


No not on top. Yep the ones already deployed should become LSG after all it’s what there doing isn’t it littoral security.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Sep 2019, 10:58

SW1 wrote:No not on top. Yep the ones already deployed should become LSG after all it’s what there doing isn’t it littoral security.


The problem is it has been proven to not be enough with more escorts being sent and we know that as soon as we go back to one escort Iran will pop back out of the box. I would say the Gulf security package needs to be out side the LSG

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Sep 2019, 11:10

Why do we need a Bay and a Point east of Suez? The role of the Bay will for the most part be carried out by the use of the forward bases and also the FLSS when needed for limited duration operations. As for the Point, what would be its role, we are not carting a Battalions worth of vehicles around the world or prepositioning equipment in a similar way to what the US does. If the latter is the intention we need to contract a fifth Point as the existing vessels are needed for rapid movement of a Brigade sized force if needed from the UK. Reducing this number would prevent this from happening until it returned to UK waters. Could be doable but not ideal by any standards.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 28 Sep 2019, 11:10

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:No not on top. Yep the ones already deployed should become LSG after all it’s what there doing isn’t it littoral security.


The problem is it has been proven to not be enough with more escorts being sent and we know that as soon as we go back to one escort Iran will pop back out of the box. I would say the Gulf security package needs to be out side the LSG



I disagree, you have a littoral group deployed if it needs reinforced then it is with either all off or elements of the carrier group. The reason more has been needed is down to us stirring the pot taking a tanker and daring them to respond without putting contingency in place.

The gulf is of diminishing strategic importance to the UK. I’m sure if you looked into numbers there is very few vessels being escorted that are transporting goods to or from the UK.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 28 Sep 2019, 11:26

SW1 wrote:The gulf is of diminishing strategic importance to the UK.
What would happen to the Global economy if access to and from the Gulf was closed for six months?

I think we would all find out very quickly why RN has a permanent presence in the region.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Sep 2019, 11:47

Yes. as for
SW1 wrote: transporting goods to or from the UK
energy might not count as "goods" and on the relative scale UK's energy dependency https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... d_2017.png is not bad compared to the rest of Europe... but:
- the Qatar crisis in 2017 was a reminder of the fact that a third of the UK’s gas imports are from the tiny Gulf state, the world’s largest producer of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which it ships to Europe and Asia
- as of now 60% of gas is imported. Looking forward, National Grid, which operates Britain’s energy networks, believes the reliance on imports could reach 93% by 2040.

What to do? Get under the US energy superiority umbrella 'plenty quick'?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 28 Sep 2019, 11:54

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes. as for
SW1 wrote: transporting goods to or from the UK
energy might not count as "goods" and on the relative scale UK's energy dependency https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... d_2017.png is not bad compared to the rest of Europe... but:
- the Qatar crisis in 2017 was a reminder of the fact that a third of the UK’s gas imports are from the tiny Gulf state, the world’s largest producer of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which it ships to Europe and Asia
- as of now 60% of gas is imported. Looking forward, National Grid, which operates Britain’s energy networks, believes the reliance on imports could reach 93% by 2040.

What to do? Get under the US energy superiority umbrella 'plenty quick'?


I’m including gas. We get plenty from Russia too. We’re getting plenty from the US and elsewhere.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 28 Sep 2019, 11:55

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:The gulf is of diminishing strategic importance to the UK.
What would happen to the Global economy if access to and from the Gulf was closed for six months?

I think we would all find out very quickly why RN has a permanent presence in the region.


I’ve no idea what would happen by I’m sure the countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq Oman, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, India, Singapore and US to name just a few would be most interested in who’s closed it for 6 months and why as there the main supplier and customer of the trade.

If the RN provides a contribution to help global trade, it provides a contribution based on the littoral strike group. That’s fine if that’s were its instructed to deploy it. We are not the world’s police man are priorities are elsewhere.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 28 Sep 2019, 11:58

Tempest414 wrote:As i have said for 100 million pounds each we could get 2 new 160 meter Makassars LPD's configured how we want

given the Tarlac class ( a sub class of Makassar class ) cost 45 million dollars and is 125 meters by 22 meters has a hangar for 2 medium helicopters and a well dock it could also be a good ship for MHC
Depends if they are built in UK or elsewhere. Very little can be built in the UK now for $45m, certainly not something like a Makassar/Tarlac. I would be expect that figure to treble or more if built to standards acceptable to RN/RFA and EMF numbers drastically reduce with habitability standards raised to a level suitable for UK personnel.

A similar concept by Vard but designed to western OPV standards from the outset is the excellent VARD 7 131. https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/

I think this design has a lot going for it:
- 130m X 24m
- A core crew allocation of around 74
- A range of 8000nm @16knts and 30 days endurance
- Hanger space for 4 medium helos with 2 landing spots
- 2x LCVP's or CB90's and 2x 11m RHIB's
- Stern/side ramps with 470 LM's of RoRo space
- An EMF figure of 300
- A 20t deck crane

If these VARD 7 131's could be UK built for around £150m they really would be the global OPV's that RN really needs at a price the UK can afford. With 4 to 6 such vessels would extra FLSS's even be required?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 02 Oct 2019, 22:54

https://warontherocks.com/2019/10/a-str ... -services/

Berger goes far beyond the other service chiefs in describing how existing doctrine, weapons, and operational concepts are no longer adequate for the wars of the future, especially given the ever-growing threat from anti-access and area denial capabilities. Since marines will have to operate within the range of proliferating enemy precision fires, they will need to disperse into small units to avoid being targeted. This will require many new capabilities, including high-endurance loitering sensors and munitions, communications and radars with a low probability of intercept and detection, and advanced air defense systems. Berger wants the Marine Corps to develop precision land-based fires with ranges beyond 350 nautical miles, to attack moving targets afloat and ashore.

Berger argues that large and expensive manned platforms will become ever more exposed to attack and will make marines ever more vulnerable by concentrating them in too few places. Instead, in a pointed phrase that should apply to all of the services, he stresses that the Marine Corps “must continue to seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.” This suggests that the Marine Corps needs a greater number of smaller and more specialized ships, as well as “an array of low-signature, affordable, and risk-worthy [read: unmanned and expendable] platforms and payloads.”

First, and most importantly, it needs to follow Berger’s lead in moving away from expensive, exquisite legacy platforms, and shift more rapidly toward far bigger investment in large numbers of cheap, unmanned, and expendable systems for a major war. As Chris Brose notes, the Air Force is deeply over-invested in short-range manned tactical fighters. The Air Force desperately needs to reduce its F-35 buy and start procuring smaller, unmanned, and eventually largely autonomous aircraft, just as Berger plans to do for amphibious shipping and watercraft

Although the Navy will surely welcome the return of the Marines as full partners in naval warfare, Berger’s sharp critique of big, expensive legacy platforms deeply undercuts current Navy shipbuilding priorities. Berger sees the need for platforms that are small, plentiful, specialized, and unmanned or minimally manned so that naval forces can continue to operate effectively inside the contested zone even if they absorb substantial losses

Berger’s vision of dispersed, small-unit operations closely resembles how special operations forces operate today. As the new guidance is implemented, the Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command should increasingly work together to develop new operational concepts and capabilities — including weapons, communications gear, intelligence systems, and insertion platforms. But Berger also needs to learn an important lesson from special operations forces about what distributed operations require. Special operators routinely conduct highly independent missions characterized by high risk, great agility, and little oversight. In order to do so effectively, they are nearly always older than conventional troops, trained for much longer periods, and carefully screened for maturity and psychological toughness. But today, the Marine Corps (and the Army) typically puts its youngest and least-experienced people at the cutting edge of the battlefield. Berger’s vision may require the Corps to rethink its model of fighting primarily with 18-year-old marines — which would be another culture-shattering challenge for the 21st-century Marine Corps.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Oct 2019, 04:32

SW1 wrote:need for platforms that are small, plentiful, specialized, and [unmanned or] minimally manned so that naval forces can continue to operate effectively inside the contested zone


I wonder how that would be different from the Streetfighter concept (which then became LCS)?
- a simulation of all - at the time - available designs for use, incidentally, in a battle "of Hormuz" had Visby come on top
- but even it, as a design, would have needed increased ASuW oomph, and endurance (to stay in the fight, as the need to pull back to base seriously inflated the total number required, for the desired effect)... and what do those two factors suggest? A bigger ship!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Oct 2019, 05:09

A concept that can inform FLSS design, including size, could be a "mini" version of a USMC ­SPMAGTF-CR[Crisis Response]-CC focusing on one area of operations throughout its deployment.

No kit allocated should be bigger than
"The KC-130s and Ospreys move "about 98 percent of the Marine-specific assets," he said, and the Hercs also participate in TRAP missions by refueling the Ospreys. The KC-130s also have refueled Harriers involved in air strikes in Iraq and Syria"
... OK, forget about the Harriers, substitute an odd Apache as an escort/ fire support e.g. for a mission to rescue a downed aircrew (TRAP in USMC parlance; comes up above)
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... ps-future/

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 03 Oct 2019, 07:33

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:need for platforms that are small, plentiful, specialized, and [unmanned or] minimally manned so that naval forces can continue to operate effectively inside the contested zone


I wonder how that would be different from the Streetfighter concept (which then became LCS)?
- a simulation of all - at the time - available designs for use, incidentally, in a battle "of Hormuz" had Visby come on top
- but even it, as a design, would have needed increased ASuW oomph, and endurance (to stay in the fight, as the need to pull back to base seriously inflated the total number required, for the desired effect)... and what do those two factors suggest? A bigger ship!


Or a mothership concept supporting larger patrol craft

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 04 Oct 2019, 08:02

SW1 wrote:Berger goes far beyond the other service chiefs in describing how existing doctrine, weapons, and operational concepts are no longer adequate for the wars of the future


That is a great article, and even though it's about the USMC as I'm reading it so much is applicable to the Royal Marines too. There are clearly people in the British and American Marines that recognise they must change to stay relevant in the future, and I hope the vision in this article wins!

Question is what do the Brits need to achieve the goals set out by Berger?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Oct 2019, 08:14

shark bait wrote:Question is what do the Brits need to achieve the goals set out by Berger?


Their previous update, which focussed on breaking down the ops concept from "a bde/ MEU minimum" down all the way to company level, quoted the RM as an example.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Oct 2019, 08:41

So with this new idea of small force that can come together from different entry points with the need for the delivery vessel to stand further back what style vessel would be best ?

What would it need to carry boat wise ? LCU, LCVP, CB90, Mk6 ?

What would it need to carry vehicle wise ? Viking, ACV, Jackal ?

What would it need to carry aircraft wise ? Chinook, merlin, V-22, V-280 ? And how many ?

What defensive measures should it have ? RFA standard, T31 standard, T26 standard ?

What size embarked force should it carry to land at different points ? 200, 300, 500 ?

Should it be equipped with everything SF will need ? Or just RM ?

These are what need to be answered now if we are going to move towards a new doctrine.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 04 Oct 2019, 08:49

shark bait wrote:
SW1 wrote:Berger goes far beyond the other service chiefs in describing how existing doctrine, weapons, and operational concepts are no longer adequate for the wars of the future


That is a great article, and even though it's about the USMC as I'm reading it so much is applicable to the Royal Marines too. There are clearly people in the British and American Marines that recognise they must change to stay relevant in the future, and I hope the vision in this article wins!

Question is what do the Brits need to achieve the goals set out by Berger?


A complete change of mindset.

Starting with ensuring this

“must continue to seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.”

Is Tattoo on the wall of ever service commands and ever procurement office of past current and future pet wonder project.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jensy, kevinbotz, Max Jones and 19 guests