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 » 08 Nov 2019, 17:31

Post Script:
I noticed two things in the latest brochure:
- Prevail has made their own experience (MoD contracts handled) less detailed, and have put their partners' credentials in focus
- and the platform they are talking about is actually a bigger "Point"; hence they cannot be conversions of those four in use as of now

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 08 Nov 2019, 21:14

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- and the platform they are talking about is actually a bigger "Point"; hence they cannot be conversions of those four in use as of now


According to Warship World, there are currently four 2nd hand Flensburger-Class up for sale. These seem to be the vessels of choice. Leevsten, which is one of the vessels, has the same beam as a Point class but is 16m longer at 209m and is 9,000t heavier at 32,000t. Narrower, but much (@35m) longer than RFA Argus.
”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

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2019, 21:28

Repulse wrote:there are currently four 2nd hand Flensburger-Class up for sale
Page 12 sets the parameters for "the ideal one" https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/fli ... llscreen=1

This is what I had overlooked: how can they have any serious aviation if they go down from the current Points' 2700 LIM to 2400
- ANSWER: they start with a ship that could have 4000, if only used for one purpose

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 08 Nov 2019, 22:06

Timmymagic wrote:The CSG could go to 32 knots....normal speed of advance of a CSG is over 20 knots


Not really, the recent reports of the carriers doing 32 knots and the oilers doing 27 is hogwash.

Fleet speed is 16 knots which generated the requirement for the Tides to be able to maintain a sustained 16 knot cruise. Funnily enough, NaB has said the FSSS requirement is 18 knots sustained which seems a trifle odd. But the BMT FSSS design does feature a slimmer hull shape presumably to meet that requirement with a tide power train.

Carrier max speed with war load will be not more than 28/29 knots. As will their escorts. Excessive fuel consumption will ensure that is rarely seen.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2019, 22:49

Ron5 wrote: the FSSS requirement is 18 knots sustained which seems a trifle odd. But the BMT FSSS design does feature a slimmer hull shape presumably to meet that requirement with a tide power train.

Carrier max speed with war load will be not more than 28/29 knots. As will their escorts.


Let's go for the 18 then - even the amphibs will be able to keep up :) .

Carrier max speed (wind over the deck and all that) is one thing, but if the escorts that are supposed to maintain a certain symmetry of positions while the carrier is zig-zagging - now less so than before? - then their sprint speeds will be critical
... or should we have more escorts so that the choreography can be more easily fulfilled/ maintained :) ?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 09 Nov 2019, 15:59

One of the main reasons for conventional carrier high speeds (apart from wind over deck) is to allow the carrier to resume its position within a fleet of escorts after having headed into wind for flying ops.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Nov 2019, 10:55

abc123 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why offload in Emden if one is headed for Estonia?


Because Baltic countries have fallen on Day 2 or 3?


There were more (other :D ) aspects to it, picked up from a wordy thinpinstripedline blog: unit rotation and testing the whole fleet mgt, i.e. will the vehicles rolling out of the (only large) climate controlled storage actually work on the day

" Tractable has helped focus attention on other critical capabilities like strategic sealift. The use of the ‘POINT’ class strat ro-ro ferry force to help move vehicles across the channel and into Emden (and then onto Estonia) has helped show how key these vessels are to British Army capability.
Without them it would be much harder to do the complex business of deploying overseas. Here too we are also reminded of the critical importance of units like 17 Port and Maritime Regiment, one of the most unusual (and vital) units in the Army today, responsible for co-0rdinating the sealift and deployment of vehicles around the globe.

This has also been a good opportunity to test the ability to bring UK vehicles out of storage from Germany, where there is still a large stored force, and ensure they can be deployed effectively. With the demise of ‘British Forces Germany’ and the associated loss of manpower and formed units, this is a good chance to test that the model of having vehicles in store works and can be activated quickly for operations. "

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Nov 2019, 14:07

I keep see talk of using a Point as the base for the LSS and I can understand the idea of commonality but aren’t the points out of contract in the mid 20s.

With that in mind and all the talk of will they be large enough to house and operate all we want why not go with something like this as the base instead -

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/0 ... ansen.html

At 238m by 34m a converted version would be more than large enough to hanger 6 merlins or 2 chinooks along with 3-4 landing spots. Space for 350 troops along with plenty of space and dividends for all sorts of unmanned systems.

If brought for the LSS it could be then put forward for 4 standard versions to replace the point to allow commonality and their increased sizing making up for the lose of points 5 and 6.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Nov 2019, 16:40

Jake1992 wrote:At 238m by 34m
A very nice design.

With capacity of 5,800 lane meters that is
- much more than the Points (2700)
- and still plenty more than (the 4000 version) proposed as a basis for FLSS https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/fli ... llscreen=1

You are right that the Points are coming to "an age" where a conversion (the cost of it) would only make sense if it were "a trial".
- however, going double the size (in lane meters) might be a tad much if the intent is to land and support a force of 120

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Nov 2019, 16:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:At 238m by 34m
A very nice design.

With capacity of 5,800 lane meters that is
- much more than the Points (2700)
- and still plenty more than (the 4000 version) proposed as a basis for FLSS https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/fli ... llscreen=1

You are right that the Points are coming to "an age" where a conversion (the cost of it) would only make sense if it were "a trial".
- however, going double the size (in lane meters) might be a tad much if the intent is to land and support a force of 120


My thinking about going to this size is to allow the 2 LSS conventions to have to room to be an Argus replacement ( 6 merlins, 3-4 spots ) while also maintaining room for a force of up to 350 along with space for 6 plus CB90 size dividends and the equipment to put in them.

But more importantly than the above is to give reason to purchase 4 of the standard version to replace the points. Most on here have accepted that there is a need for greater sea lift capacity especially if we’re going to look to move a strike brigade more often. 4 of these are the equivalent of 8 points which more than compensated for the lose of hulls 5 and 6

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 642
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 27 Feb 2020, 18:58

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Equipment-Plan-2019-to-2029.pdf

3.12 The Transformation Fund projects will need additional funding if they are to deliver
usable capabilities. For example, the Navy received £5 million to develop an outline
business case for the Littoral Strike Ship concept but estimates that it will cost about
£600 million to introduce these ships into service. These projects will be taken forward
in accordance with the Department’s standard processes for designing and developing
new capabilities. They are subject to six-monthly reviews and can be stopped if they
do not deliver as intended.


£600 million needed to deliver anything when the current equipment plan is already unaffordable.

RIP Littoral Strike Ship.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Feb 2020, 09:35

Would be interesting to see what the navy wanted for 300 million per ship or 400 million over the 200 million every one was walking about

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 Feb 2020, 10:42

Tempest414 wrote:Would be interesting to see what the navy wanted for 300 million per ship or 400 million over the 200 million every one was walking about
Clearly at that price point it was to be a lot more than a converted Point.

An Enforcer derivative perhaps?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 29 Feb 2020, 13:43

Poiuytrewq wrote:An Enforcer derivative perhaps?

That sounds about right. It seems that the "strike" part of the name was a genuine aspiration. If £600m is the money needed, then the RN/RM are looking for something that sits between the Albions and the Bays in capability terms, whereas the supposed £200m "budget" (I think based more on the fact that there was £300m in the Transformation Fund than anything that was stated by the RN/MOD) seems to be set for something that sits between the Bays and the Points. Either would be very useful, but in different spheres.

I think, however, that the RN will have to get the second Albion into use first, after which they would be in a better position to argue for additional money.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Feb 2020, 18:45

Possibly at some point in the future, but I would think only when the Albions require replacement, which could actually be a very long time. Remember how long we kept their predecessors in service, with only one active at any one time, the other in "Extended Readiness". I wouldn't be surprised if both Albion and Bulwark were around into the 2040s regardless of current OSD estimates. The same will probably also apply to the Bays. The Admirals will want to retain the capability but will not be willing to invest in it as they will have far greater needs.

Online
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2524
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 01 Mar 2020, 09:51

RichardIC wrote:https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/The-Equipment-Plan-2019-to-2029.pdf

3.12 The Transformation Fund projects will need additional funding if they are to deliver
usable capabilities. For example, the Navy received £5 million to develop an outline
business case for the Littoral Strike Ship concept but estimates that it will cost about
£600 million to introduce these ships into service. These projects will be taken forward
in accordance with the Department’s standard processes for designing and developing
new capabilities. They are subject to six-monthly reviews and can be stopped if they
do not deliver as intended.




RIP Littoral Strike Ship.


And no value was lost. IMHO.
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…

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Mar 2020, 10:45

Comes home to roost how backward thinking it was to sell Largs Bay

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Mar 2020, 11:04

Tempest414 wrote:backward thinking it was to sell Largs Bay


Agree that 4 should be the number, but subtly the materials of FLSS have a spec with double the LIMs of the original Bay: 1200 -> 2400, without no verbosity about it in the blurb that was (along with piccies) attached

Put that together with the manning intensity of the Albions, and rotating them while having one of these new Bays coming along... with the FLSS fit-out
... more versatile AND cost effective
BUT £300m is not what we got for Largs Bay, which would be the upfront cost, to be recouped through running the more efficient mix over years to come

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 01 Mar 2020, 11:21

If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 01 Mar 2020, 11:37

Lord Jim wrote:Possibly at some point in the future, but I would think only when the Albions require replacement

Yes - agreed as to likely timescales, though the RN appears to be looking for something in the shorter term. But the point remains that, if the RN continues to operate a single Albion at a time, then they will find it more difficult to argue for money for two new ships in future, when they could get the other Albion working for a far lower cost (though out of a different budget).

The Point-based FLSS was a possibility with the money available (and may have even been justifiable out of the savings made by leaving one Albion in extended readiness), but may end up being seen as filling many of the same requirement as the aid/ hospital ships idea, so will not happen until a decision is made on that (IMHO it would be aid money well spent, particularly if there was some joined-up thinking on co-operaton between the RFA, the NHS and the various merchant marine trade schools still operating in the UK).

£300m per hull is an interesting figure - it seems too much for converting a merchant hull, but (at todays prices) a little too low for a full-on LPD/LHD built in the UK - fertile ground for much (probably fruitless) speculation :think:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 01 Mar 2020, 12:26

I understand NAO report simply says, "FLSS is dead". I think if you read it "straight forward", it will be the only answer?

Albion replacement will be, I agree, in the 2040s. At least, unrelated to 2019-2029 decadal plan. Rather, (one of, or both of) Albion disbanding could be an issue, as was discussed 2 years ago.

FLSS is "dangerous" in such sense. Slightly update two of the Point-class and call them LSLLs, then disband 2 LPDs (Albion) "in place", is a very good way to cut LPDs.

In this point of view, I think killing FLSS will be very important.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RetroSicotte » 01 Mar 2020, 13:43

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand NAO report simply says, "FLSS is dead". I think if you read it "straight forward", it will be the only answer?

Albion replacement will be, I agree, in the 2040s. At least, unrelated to 2019-2029 decadal plan. Rather, (one of, or both of) Albion disbanding could be an issue, as was discussed 2 years ago.

FLSS is "dangerous" in such sense. Slightly update two of the Point-class and call them LSLLs, then disband 2 LPDs (Albion) "in place", is a very good way to cut LPDs.

In this point of view, I think killing FLSS will be very important.

There is no way to say "Cut Albion and Bulwark" and "good" in the same sentence post. That would be foolish beyond all measure.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 01 Mar 2020, 16:05

SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.


Surely the best answer would be to cancel Tempest and just buy more F-35B's?

Budget instantly balanced.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 01 Mar 2020, 16:38

SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.

From a quick read through the NAO report, it seems that the "best case" is an underspend of £1.2b and the "worst case" is an overspend of $13b , with the most likely being an overspend of £2.9b over the next 10 years, spread across both equipment and support budgets for all three services (so approximately £1b per service, or £100m per service per year - worst case is closer to £430m per service per year). For the last two or three years the Treasury has been putting in an extra "one off" £1-1.2b to cover the shortfall. The additional 0.5% over inflation will gradually compensate, but it seems to me that, for what are relatively small amounts in national budget terms, that the "most likely" scenario could easily be accomodated. It still keeps the pressure on the MOD to manage its projects more efficiently, but might remove the pressure for cuts.
Interestingly, one of the NAO's major criticisms (amongst many others) is that the MOD remains focussed on in-year budgets, when taking a multi-year approach to budgets might generate significant savings (something that has been repeatedly stated on here, of course) - I thought that that was something that the Treasury insisted upon, so is this an indirect criticism of the Treasury?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 01 Mar 2020, 17:15

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:If the NAO report didn’t wake people up to how overspent the budget is nothing will. I’m amazed people still think the lpds survive that long if the two carrier do come on stream. At best both are mothballed. Would suspect the bays are being relieved from there presence duties to either be scrapped or used in littoral role one hopes it’s the latter.

From a quick read through the NAO report, it seems that the "best case" is an underspend of £1.2b and the "worst case" is an overspend of $13b , with the most likely being an overspend of £2.9b over the next 10 years, spread across both equipment and support budgets for all three services (so approximately £1b per service, or £100m per service per year - worst case is closer to £430m per service per year). For the last two or three years the Treasury has been putting in an extra "one off" £1-1.2b to cover the shortfall. The additional 0.5% over inflation will gradually compensate, but it seems to me that, for what are relatively small amounts in national budget terms, that the "most likely" scenario could easily be accomodated. It still keeps the pressure on the MOD to manage its projects more efficiently, but might remove the pressure for cuts.
Interestingly, one of the NAO's major criticisms (amongst many others) is that the MOD remains focussed on in-year budgets, when taking a multi-year approach to budgets might generate significant savings (something that has been repeatedly stated on here, of course) - I thought that that was something that the Treasury insisted upon, so is this an indirect criticism of the Treasury?


The “best case” is what the service budget holders think will happen, there departments own internal audit doesn’t even think that is the case. I would suggest it’s likely they have somewhere between the 1.2b and 13b. But you also need to factor in they intend to make a further 7b off efficiency saving over the same period. Also Not to mention things that aren’t even budgeted for like f35 numbers beyond 48, mcm, littoral strike, or any of the fancy new things that they want. Also worth remembering that pay and pension contributions will also rise going fwd

That one off payment was in part a pull fwd from future budgets to keep successor on track.

There criticism of the in year budgets is two fold one the mod has yet again got to the point were it has to many programs running at the same time and not meeting it’s in year budgets which was exactly what the 10 year budget equipment program was supposed to avoid. It give them a 10
Year horizon were they could see were spend was coming and stagger replacements of equipment to smooth out the budget and not get into a situation we’re in year bubbles appear a financial management tool if you like they’ve failed miserably.
The second being the mod are back again to delaying or scaling back numbers programs rather than stopping which makes the problem worse. This isn’t new it’s precisely what all the smart procurement initiatives ect ect were brought in to change and what mod insisted had changed when the nao said we remain to be convinced it had and they were right.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gandalf, Google [Bot], Jake1992, Jensy, Jimpa and 21 guests