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.
jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 13 Feb 2019, 07:47

Lord Jim wrote:We are not going to be conducting large scale assaults over the beach, we are simply not equipped or trained for it.

The whole OTH by anything other than by Helicopter seems a capability not needed by the UK.

I don't think anyone suggested that Iwo Jima was their plan? Landing amphibious forces have enormous utility aside from fighting their way up a beach.

And a number of people continue to have grave doubts about the utility of 600 airborne knife-fighters, when they might also be able to function as a mobile all-arms battlegroup alongside a larger strike brigade.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Feb 2019, 08:42

Caribbean wrote:seem to be akin to the originally-planned "seabasing" versions of the SSS.

- a budget version
- and with two, you'll always have at least one available

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Feb 2019, 09:07

Jake1992 wrote:Why not a Karel Doorman as the base design them ?
As said before probably too expensive but if these LSS vessels are to be commercial conversions then could something KD like be an option?

Actually, if a large number of vehicles aren't required, and they don't appear to be from the initial LSS concept a superstructure forward design could be preferable. Similar in configuration to a Bay or a Karel Doorman.

Commercially this configuration is very common, this reefer example is pretty typical. Used for the global banana trade its 200m X 30m dimensions are similar to a KD but it's a bit faster with a top speed of 20.5knts.



Creating a hanger within an enlarged superstructure capable of embarking 6 Merlins or 2 Chinooks with rotors extended should be pretty straightforward, as would creating 2 Chinook capable landing spots. A large aft working deck with a stern mounted 40t crane would be possible with direct access to a very large deck garage under the flight deck.
image.jpg


A Karel Doorman style stern arrangement with an offset ramp and steel beach configuration looks perfectly possible as the offset ramp is already in situ.
image.jpg

All in all it may well be a better basis for an LSS conversion than a Point.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Feb 2019, 10:15

Poiuytrewq wrote: Used for the global banana trade its 200m X 30m dimensions

This vessel https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/sh ... id=1423277 has the same dimensions (quite big), but the layout is better, see e.g. the locating of the funnels

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Feb 2019, 11:20

So this is how I see it going. I now think we will see 2 of the 4 Points converted into this new LSS for around 80 to 100 million. Now with the term Littoral strike group being pushed about we could see two groups capable of moving 1000 troops like so

Group 1 ) Albion , 1 x Bay , 1 x LSS , 1 x Point - area of operations the Gulf ( LSS only forward deployed )

Group 2 ) Bulwark , 1 x Bay, 1 x LSS , 1 x Point - Area of operations the Pacific ( LSS only forward deployed)

one or both these groups could be joined by a carrier strike group if needed ( before someone comes back I am not saying it has to be a British carrier group)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Feb 2019, 13:55

jedibeeftrix wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We are not going to be conducting large scale assaults over the beach, we are simply not equipped or trained for it.

The whole OTH by anything other than by Helicopter seems a capability not needed by the UK.

I don't think anyone suggested that Iwo Jima was their plan? Landing amphibious forces have enormous utility aside from fighting their way up a beach.

And a number of people continue to have grave doubts about the utility of 600 airborne knife-fighters, when they might also be able to function as a mobile all-arms battlegroup alongside a larger strike brigade.


I understand as I was saying that the initial force, Company sized of greater would be landed by Helicopter to sanitise a landing area be it a beach or some sort of port, allow other vessels to move in closer and unload rapidly, be it the remainder of the Ready Commando or the lead element of a Strike Brigade, allowing one or more all arms Battle Groups to be quickly formed to expand the area controlled and so on. For this you do not need to use landing craft or whatever type to be launched form OTH.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 13 Feb 2019, 14:11

And what's so wrong with two new LPDs like this instead?

Image
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…

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Feb 2019, 14:16

abc123 wrote:And what's so wrong with two new LPDs like this instead?

Image


The way I see this going is that the LSS will be used mainly by SF and small scale RM raids but would be able to join any amphibious group to compliment them.

With Mr Williams saying that the Albion’s and bays can joint with the LSS keeps open that they will be replaced separately.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jensy » 13 Feb 2019, 14:30

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote:seem to be akin to the originally-planned "seabasing" versions of the SSS.

- a budget version
- and with two, you'll always have at least one available


Going back to the good old noughties (with a little help from the Navy Matters archive), gives some retro insight into this 'brand new' project.

In those days, MARS was expected to deliver 11 odd ships. It's interesting to see the breakup of requirements between:

Fleet Tanker/FSS/JSBL

Image

By 2007 it was expected that there would be:
-Five fleet tankers for delivery between 2011 and 2016.
- Three joint sea-based logistics vessels for delivery in 2018, 2020 and 2021.
- Two fleet solid-support ships for delivery in 2017 and 2019.
- A single fleet tanker (CVF/carrier strike) for delivery in 2016


Accepting the drop to four Tides (rather than six) as a sign of generally smaller fleet, the numbers for the other two classes seem to have stayed remarkably stable for a decade or more:

From: 3 JBSL + 2 FSS;
to the newly announced;
2 FLSS + 2 (or 3) SSS

Does this raise a question of whether a theoretical third SSS is more vital than anything else the Navy might want, or desperately require?

Also anyone know how long Point type ships are expected to last in military, rather than commercial service?

Jensy

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 13 Feb 2019, 14:37

Jake1992 wrote:
abc123 wrote:And what's so wrong with two new LPDs like this instead?

Image


The way I see this going is that the LSS will be used mainly by SF and small scale RM raids but would be able to join any amphibious group to compliment them.

With Mr Williams saying that the Albion’s and bays can joint with the LSS keeps open that they will be replaced separately.


Of course, but again- against who?
Al Shabab and such organisations ( not even sure it would be advisable against Houthies without LCACs ) maybe, but nobody stronger.
So, why build entire class of ships for such limited threat?
Why not build not much more expensive but far more valuable LSDs instead?
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…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Feb 2019, 14:47

abc123 wrote:So, why build entire class of ships for such limited threat?
Why not build not much more expensive but far more valuable LSDs instead?
I think this itself is the answer. LSS will be VERY cheap = conversion. The budget Mr. Williamson said includes "standing up swarm drones squadrons" as I understand?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 13 Feb 2019, 14:53

abc123 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
abc123 wrote:And what's so wrong with two new LPDs like this instead?

Image


The way I see this going is that the LSS will be used mainly by SF and small scale RM raids but would be able to join any amphibious group to compliment them.

With Mr Williams saying that the Albion’s and bays can joint with the LSS keeps open that they will be replaced separately.


Of course, but again- against who?
Al Shabab and such organisations ( not even sure it would be advisable against Houthies without LCACs ) maybe, but nobody stronger.
So, why build entire class of ships for such limited threat?
Why not build not much more expensive but far more valuable LSDs instead?


I’d see it as more of a SF base with the ability to lurnch small RM but this would be a less used option IMO.

Who do we use SF against now ? To me these would be more of a mobile base than a war Ship of any sort.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 13 Feb 2019, 16:48

Lord Jim wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We are not going to be conducting large scale assaults over the beach, we are simply not equipped or trained for it.

The whole OTH by anything other than by Helicopter seems a capability not needed by the UK.

I don't think anyone suggested that Iwo Jima was their plan? Landing amphibious forces have enormous utility aside from fighting their way up a beach.

And a number of people continue to have grave doubts about the utility of 600 airborne knife-fighters, when they might also be able to function as a mobile all-arms battlegroup alongside a larger strike brigade.


I understand as I was saying that the initial force, Company sized of greater would be landed by Helicopter to sanitise a landing area be it a beach or some sort of port, allow other vessels to move in closer and unload rapidly, be it the remainder of the Ready Commando or the lead element of a Strike Brigade, allowing one or more all arms Battle Groups to be quickly formed to expand the area controlled and so on. For this you do not need to use landing craft or whatever type to be launched form OTH.


i expect the 3Cdo atfg to provide the all arms Battle Groups to expand the area controlled; to secure entry and support in theater that strike brigade/battlegroup.
and i anticipate 3Cdo retaining the tools for amphibious landing as part of their role in securing entry for that Strike brigade/battlegroup via port facilities.

i don't believe that maintaining this capability at ~1700 bodies is affordable, or unnecessary.
losing the tools and support to fight as a mobile all-arms formation weakens the justification for maintaining 3Cdo as a brigade scale unit.
if so, we might as well scale it back to one general purpose Cdo and one special duties Cdo using the Army infrantry+ training pipeline.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Feb 2019, 17:37

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: Used for the global banana trade its 200m X 30m dimensions

This vessel https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/sh ... id=1423277 has the same dimensions (quite big), but the layout is better, see e.g. the locating of the funnels
Just as good as my reefer example, plenty of suitable donor hulls out there.

The important part is having the political will to make it happen and with Mr Williamson we appear to have a Defence Secretary capable getting things done and not simply play the Treasury's tune.

Personally I would like him to stick around for a while...

The logic of flogging Ocean to Brazil for a pittance and the nearly new Largs Bay to our Australian chums now seems even more idiotic than it did at the time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Feb 2019, 17:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:The logic of flogging Ocean to Brazil for a pittance and the nearly new Largs Bay to our Australian chums now seems even more idiotic than it did at the time.


I am not sure as the doctrine (not only ours, but USMC's) is leaning towards more distributed ops, using the "from the sea" element of mobility and surprise to the max. Requires more granularity, capable of perseverance and being self-supported over 'period X'. Down to company level, which is where these ships could fit in.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 13 Feb 2019, 17:54

Poiuytrewq wrote:
The logic of flogging Ocean to Brazil for a pittance and the nearly new Largs Bay to our Australian chums now seems even more idiotic than it did at the time.


Yep.
IMHO, the RN needs to stop screwing around and waste money ( that is in short supply anyway ). Stay with proven things. USN and Chinese Navy have the money and will to spend on various things that they might need or not need so much, but they can afford that. The RN (regrettfully ) can't afford that. Especially in situation where they have neither the money or crews to operate frigates of destroyers, and to spend money on this? :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…

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 829
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 13 Feb 2019, 19:11

Reading between the lines a bit, it is interesting that the Littoral Strike Group east of Suez was only referred to operating in the Indian and Pacific region - no mention of the Gulf. I would have suspected that the eastern LSS would be based in Bahrain with the local T23/T31 acting as its escort. But the words used during the speech would appear to imply that the eastern LSS may be based somewhere like Singapore along with a T31 and a Wave. But where would this T31 come from?

And again, the west of Suez LSG will need an escort and support. Where will its T23GP/T31 come from?

With just 5 T31s, the only option for the eastern LSG is to use the Bahrain based T31, while the western LSS plus T31 and Wave would have to cover APT(N), APT(S) and Nato tasks.

The remaining 3 T31s would have to UK based, covering the FRE along with refit and training.

But could this also imply a desire by the RN to procure a second batch of 5 T31? The words 'first batch' have been often used when referring to the current T31 plan for 5 ships. Another 5 T31 would allow 2 to be attached to each Littoral Strike Group (and one in refit), while leaving current plans for the first 5 T31s unaltered. A T31 would add a lot of ISTAR capabilities to the LSG, and if armed with Wildcat, 4.5" gun and maybe a VLS Spear 3, could add a lot to land fires.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 13 Feb 2019, 19:20

Aethulwulf wrote:R The words 'first batch' have been often used when referring to the current T31 plan for 5 ships.


Yeah, Type 45s were also "first batch"...
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…

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 829
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 13 Feb 2019, 20:27

Yeah, but the times they are a changing.

(Maybe.)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1854
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 13 Feb 2019, 21:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: Used for the global banana trade its 200m X 30m dimensions

This vessel https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais/sh ... id=1423277 has the same dimensions (quite big), but the layout is better, see e.g. the locating of the funnels
Just as good as my reefer example, plenty of suitable donor hulls out there.

The important part is having the political will to make it happen and with Mr Williamson we appear to have a Defence Secretary capable getting things done and not simply play the Treasury's tune.

Personally I would like him to stick around for a while...

The logic of flogging Ocean to Brazil for a pittance and the nearly new Largs Bay to our Australian chums now seems even more idiotic than it did at the time.


Sad to see ocean go, by it sounds like she would have been overkill for what the LSS is supposed to be (plus only one of her, not 2). Crew and operationally expensive too I guess - ocean was something like 300 (?) Where as it will probably be more like 70-80 for each LSS

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Feb 2019, 21:23

Aethulwulf wrote:Reading between the lines a bit...
So your assessment if that the two proposed LSG's will each have an LSS, a single T31 and a Wave?

This will be increased to two T31's per LSG if the second batch is ordered. That would leave a pool of six T31's for FRE, training refit etc?

It doesn't sound like either Bay is going to be entirely relieved from the Caribbean or Gulf? Although the Wave in the Caribbean would do a bit more (refit?).

It seems like a massively ambitious uplift and I can't help thinking that another four or five T26's would be better than all those T31's but it all depends how capable the T31's turn out to be.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1854
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 13 Feb 2019, 21:31

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Reading between the lines a bit...
So your assessment if that the two proposed LSG's will each have an LSS, a single T31 and a Wave?

This will be increased to two T31's per LSG if the second batch is ordered. That would leave a pool of six T31's for FRE, training refit etc?

It doesn't sound like either Bay is going to be entirely relieved from the Caribbean or Gulf? Although the Wave in the Caribbean would do a bit more (refit?).

It seems like a massively ambitious uplift and I can't help thinking that another four or five T26's would be better than all those T31's but it all depends how capable the T31's turn out to be.


Williamson specifically said that each LSS group would be forward based and each would consist of an LSS, support ship and escort (and helicopters). The escort will surely be T23GP/T31 since there are too few T23 ASW/T26 (little capacity after TAPS and CBG escorts) and the fact that two T23GP/T31s have been announced to be forward based (was it 1 in the Gulf and 1 East of Suez?). The Waves would seem most logical as the support ship since we have two of them which are not currently looking likely to be tied up undertaking other duties (that we know of), and the other support ships are going to be busy keeping the CBGs supplied.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Feb 2019, 21:36

dmereifield wrote:Where as it will probably be more like 70-80 for each LSS
What kind of a Littoral Strike capability will it have with a crew allocation like that?

It doesn't sound to me like this is a surge capability so the support will need to be onboard as well as the marines.

If a single Wildcat is embarked on a Bay the crew allocation is generally around the 90 to 100 mark including the aviation personnel. If the LSS routinely embarks a couple of Merlins/Chinooks and a wildcat or two plus medical staff I would expect the core crew allocation to be at least 150 to 160 plus marines.

If the LSS concept really is to be a rapid reaction force, everything will need to be in place to react rapidly. Stands to reason.

It's a great concept but it won't be cheap even if the platform itself is built using a bargin basement commercial conversion.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1854
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 13 Feb 2019, 22:06

Poiuytrewq wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Where as it will probably be more like 70-80 for each LSS
What kind of a Littoral Strike capability will it have with a crew allocation like that?

It doesn't sound to me like this is a surge capability so the support will need to be onboard as well as the marines.

If a single Wildcat is embarked on a Bay the crew allocation is generally around the 90 to 100 mark including the aviation personnel. If the LSS routinely embarks a couple of Merlins/Chinooks and a wildcat or two plus medical staff I would expect the core crew allocation to be at least 150 to 160 plus marines.

If the LSS concept really is to be a rapid reaction force, everything will need to be in place to react rapidly. Stands to reason.

It's a great concept but it won't be cheap even if the platform itself is built using a bargin basement commercial conversion.


I was suggesting that the core crew would be in that ball park, with flight crews and embarked forces excluded from that figure. Just a suggestion, based on current crew shortages across the fleet seemingly in the range of 500-1000, that adding 2 new ships of 100-300 crew each isn't feasible. Therefore, they'll have to be mean manned like the bays

SW1
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 13 Feb 2019, 22:43

The trick with these ships will be to keep them as simple as possible, it is the systems and the people that go on them that will determine there mission and it will change over time. The point class either along the lines of the US example or the Canadian support ship is a gd option because they are simple to run vessels that are reliable and we can fill with whatever we want. essentially a big space with gd hotel facilities to support fwd deployment and plenty of logistics capacity to sustain themselves.

These should come with a change in doctrine to how we use the commandos . Being civilian in appearance allows them to an extent hide in plain sight to conduct deterrence by denial. By that I mean using them as raiding platforms to harass a foreign power and deny sea space using gruelling tactics. We hear a lot about the enemy using fast attack craft, mines, missiles ect for anti access well,perhaps we could use these to do the same to him, or to deploy systems to counter his.

They shouldn’t be for large scale helicopter assaults or the like but small teams from the likes of 42 commando in its new role or 43 commando or the SF to gather intel, board vessels, raid convertly using any number of unmanned air, surface or sub surface assets along with raiding craft or a couple helicopters. Even expanding on the many nations trials with the like of HIMARs on ship to provide anti ship or land attack in hit and run strikes on enemy positions to confuse the situation are all possibilities. The vessel in the Far East could perhaps use the units in Brunei and provide them with mobility as happened with HMS Glasgow in the past.

Being a large vessel with lots of container or vehicle space have disaster potiential and as a point can use austere port facilities perhaps they could carry repair and remotely operated survey equipment to open a damaged port it gives any number of possiblities for roles even just the transport of a number of vehicles to various places for exercises.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JHC, Timmymagic, Wrekin1410 and 101 guests