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 » 13 Feb 2019, 22:56

dmereifield wrote:Therefore, they'll have to be mean manned like the bays
If we do that then we might as well use a Bay. I understand your reasoning and I have questions over the financial viability of the LSG concept with current funding levels but let's look at what the Defence Secretary actually said.

Here is a direct quote from Mr Williamson's speech at RUSI,

"They would support our Future Commando Force. Our world-renowned Royal Marines – they’ll be forward deployed, at exceptionally high readiness, and able to respond at a moment’s notice bringing the fight from sea to land."

You can't do that with a lean manned ship.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 13 Feb 2019, 23:02

What are littoral strike ships?

Littoral strike ships are vessels which can command an assault force from anywhere in the world – carrying everything from helicopters and fast boats to underwater automated vehicles and huge numbers of troops.

They are designed to be able to get in close to land – with ‘littoral’ literally meaning the part of the sea which is closest to the shore.

Under plans being looked at by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, these assault ships would be forward deployed permanently away from the UK.


https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/february/11/190211-defence-secretary-reveals-future-assault-ship-plan

Another interesting statement... but what is meant by "huge numbers of troops"?

So, if their primary job is for SF or RM "raids", my expectations would be berths for around 150 troops plus crews for helicopters and assault craft. So maybe around 300 berths, plus those required for the core crew.

But does that sound like a "huge number", even in a RN context?

So maybe the RN is also thinking about the LSS role in a full scale amphibious assault, alongside the Albions, Bays, etc. Current plans and ship capacity is based around a Lead Commando Group with a single all arms Cdo battlegroup. By adding two LSS to the mix, what would it take to up that capacity to two Cdo battlegroups? My rough guess is that each LSS would need to be able to carry 750 pax, plus their core crew.

Does 750 pax count as huge?

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Feb 2019, 00:40

Looking at the need for escorts for the western LSS, especially if deployed to the Gulf, I think it would be safe to say that our allies in the region would be invited to work along side the Royal Navy and SF, with such co-operation a great tool for further enhancing out footprint and our integration with them.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 14 Feb 2019, 01:19

The western LSG was described as operating west of Suez, in the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Baltic - not the Gulf

One of the strike groups will be based to the East of Suez in the Indo-Pacific and the other would be deployed to the West of Suez in the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Baltic to enhance the UK’s role in facing global challenges.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Feb 2019, 09:55

Poiuytrewq wrote:You can't do that with a lean manned ship.

I would check out what the core crew for Points is as of now (I don't know, but would guess 12-20) before adding any aircrew, and finally the RM contingent (which would come with the boat handling/ driving experts)
Aethulwulf wrote:based to the East of Suez in the Indo-Pacific
it is that one, where the Gulf (Region) is included
- work in the Gulf
- R&R in Singapore?

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Feb 2019, 10:14

Point class has a crew of 22 but if we are going to say the Core crew is the people who move the ship from one place to the next then a Frigate would have a core crew of about 30. For me these ships as laid out will need a staff of 130 to 160 + RM lets not forget they will about 40 crew just for the feeding of and medical needs of the on board crew and RM

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Feb 2019, 10:42

Aethulwulf wrote:So, if their primary job is for SF or RM "raids", my expectations would be berths for around 150 troops plus crews for helicopters and assault craft. So maybe around 300 berths, plus those required for the core crew.
Depending on how invasive the hangers are into the superstructure and what medical facilities are incorporated I don't think that number can be accommodated in the superstructure of the LSS concept. Could that mean the use of at least the forward part of the tank deck for EMF accommodation, similar to a Bay type setup?

Aethulwulf wrote:But does that sound like a "huge number", even in a RN context?
Clearly not.

Aethulwulf wrote:So maybe the RN is also thinking about the LSS role in a full scale amphibious assault, alongside the Albions, Bays, etc. Current plans and ship capacity is based around a Lead Commando Group with a single all arms Cdo battlegroup. By adding two LSS to the mix, what would it take to up that capacity to two Cdo battlegroups? My rough guess is that each LSS would need to be able to carry 750 pax, plus their core crew.
Could this be the reason why the Point conversion is the preferred option? The vehicle capacity is not very important for the LSS or HADR roles but could be vital as part of a larger Amphibious Task Group? It's starting to make sense.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Feb 2019, 11:06

Could this be the reason why the Point conversion is the preferred option?

Could be. Equally it can just have happened that the Ocean Trader image was readily to hand, and being so closely related to an asset in service 'now' gives it further credence
- whatever will be chosen, it will likely be in the 10 kt to 20 kt range
- you could simply scale this one up from 83m × 16.03m
and the boat handling capacity would be so vast that the space in front of the bridge could be dedicated for a helo pad

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Feb 2019, 11:19

So I have been thinking if when they converted a Point class and added the flight deck they made it 34 meter wide maybe they could add a side lift like on the Wasp class or QE class meaning none of the deck below is wasted plus it could allow 4 spots and would allow the hangar at deck level to be a 2 bay hangar for storage and maintenance and leaveing more room in the added upper structure

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Feb 2019, 11:50

Tempest414 wrote:if when they converted a Point class and added the flight deck they made it 34 meter wide
It would also have other advantages.....
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Feb 2019, 11:54

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:if when they converted a Point class and added the flight deck they made it 34 meter wide
It would also have other advantages.....
image.jpg


The thought the San Antonio class were 32m beam ?
This is why I like the Karel Doorman design or the cheaper yet similar vessel you surgested up thread, with a 30m beam something like this could be achieved.

inch
Member
Posts: 538
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby inch » 14 Feb 2019, 12:18

Do we think people are getting too overexcited what we might get and in reallity it's just going to be something very basic and not too large ?if you can believe anything about the mod it will probably underwhelm most people but probably be adequate

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Feb 2019, 12:28

inch wrote:Do we think people are getting too overexcited what we might get and in reallity it's just going to be something very basic and not too large ?if you can believe anything about the mod it will probably underwhelm most people but probably be adequate


For me I’m thinking that the base line they’ll be working on to decide a design is something similar to MV-Ocean raider and then see if that can deliver everything expected from these vessels.

I agree Karel Doorman is out of the question expense wise but would a cheaper yet similar cimercial conversion of the sorts shown up thread be too ambitious ?

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Feb 2019, 14:02

inch wrote:be something very basic and not too large ?


Likely. Enough of boats (HADR can't be done just by driving by the queye side) but rudimentary helo facilities (Surveillance/ infiltration/ evacuation, incl. medevac).

When CB90s and/ or a couple of these https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HPhX7aOg85A/ ... 40x493.jpg from MSI Defence are not enough, then a separate escort is to be added.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Feb 2019, 14:57

Jake1992 wrote:The thought the San Antonio class were 32m beam ?
Yes, just an example of what can be done if the beam goes above 32m.
This is why I like the Karel Doorman design or the cheaper yet similar vessel you surgested up thread, with a 30m beam something like this could be achieved.
The Karel Doorman is an interesting design although I think it's trying to do too much within one platform.

The general configuration however is pretty ideal for an auxiliary amphibious assault vessel if a large amount of vehicle capacity is not required. The vehicle deck on the KD isn't that big.

It all comes do to whether a large vehicle capacity is deemed necessary or not. If it is then a modified Point is probably the best option.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 14 Feb 2019, 15:02

On a slightly different note, this sounds like the origin of the jibes about using car ferries as "warships" back in August last year. Seems he was serious and the result is potentially a sensible use of scarce resources.

I wonder what will come out of the alleged comments about guns on tractors and Cruise missiles in Coca-cola lorries - probably portee artillery/ mortars and containerised launchers.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Feb 2019, 15:19

Caribbean wrote:On a slightly different note, this sounds like the origin of the jibes about using car ferries as "warships" back in August last year. Seems he was serious and the result is potentially a sensible use of scarce resources.

I wonder what will come out of the alleged comments about guns on tractors and Cruise missiles in Coca-cola lorries - probably portee artillery/ mortars and containerised launchers.
It was a hatchet job and way over top I suspect.
jh-composite-farmageddon.jpg
Who's laughing now. His RUSI speech appears to have been extremely well received at home and in many allied nations abroad.

Looking forward to the Guns on tractors also.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SDL
Member
Posts: 609
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SDL » 14 Feb 2019, 15:23

Guns on..... what?

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 14 Feb 2019, 15:26

inch wrote:Do we think people are getting too overexcited what we might get and in reallity it's just going to be something very basic and not too large ?if you can believe anything about the mod it will probably underwhelm most people but probably be adequate


If it can operate 4-6 helicopters like RFA Argus, operate 4-6 fast boats / LCVP / USuV MCMs, host a company of RMs and have a rear “steel beach” for the Griffon hovercraft - I’ll be happy :angel:
"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

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 14 Feb 2019, 16:16

inch wrote:Do we think people are getting too overexcited what we might get and in reallity it's just going to be something very basic and not too large ?if you can believe anything about the mod it will probably underwhelm most people but probably be adequate


Yup, the fantasy fleetists are properly frothing over it. It's killing this forum IMHO. Or maybe it's the only reason it still has a pulse, depending on your point-of-view.

It's not helped by the freaking stupid name. Calling a converted ro-ro a Littoral Strike Ship FFS. I think Gavin is probably the biggest fantasy fleetist of them all.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Feb 2019, 16:21

Repulse wrote:operate 4-6 helicopters like RFA Argus, operate 4-6 fast boats / LCVP / USuV MCMs, host a company of RMs and have a rear “steel beach” for the Griffon hovercraft


The rest of that is easy, but instead of 4-6 helos I would go for 2 light or 1 medium (the size penalty on the ships is excessive and the helos themselves are expensive)
- or, by reheating some of the Black Swan concept ideas, you could have the same helo pad serve a good number of semi-disposable UAV and one "real" helo: https://laststandonzombieisland.files.w ... i-deck.jpg

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Feb 2019, 19:04

I think this is a useful example of what can be sourced for a relatively small amount to form a basis for the proposed LSS vessels.

This is the Bhari Abha, built in 2013 for around £50m. It's a bit bigger than a Point measuring 225m in length and a beam of 32m.
image.jpg
image.jpg
I am not suggesting that this a perfect configuration for conversion, only that this is what around £60m to £70m buys new at today's prices if built in Korea.

At 5 to 10 years old around £35m is realistic.

The deck layout is slightly different to the Point Class but this animation gives a good sense of the space available.



The costing can be found at the bottom of this page. https://fairplay.ihs.com/article/6993/b ... -con-fleet
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 » 15 Feb 2019, 19:22

Poiuytrewq wrote: this animation gives a good sense of the space available.


and also of where the hangars could reasonably be placed, without interrupting the flow
- not saying we need all of those LIMs

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Feb 2019, 20:01

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- not saying we need all of those LIMs
I was initially confused about the LiM's too. I suspect it's not for the LSS role, more likely to be a requirement when the LSS vessel(s) join the Amphibious Task Group.

Still lots of questions, such as, will the remaining Points be dropping to two now? Or are we just making up for the two that have already been released?

Are we effectively now admitting that RN will from now on be a two tier navy? Meaning, is the CSG and T45's/T26's the Tier1 surface fleet and the LSG with the T31's/RB2's the Tier2 surface fleet? Normally both Tiers will work independently unless pulled together as part of a wider task force?

If so I like the strategy, it appears to be a clever use of resources that can be tailored to the perceived threat level in the area of deployment.

Are the Waves going to be retained to form part of the two LSG's? If we lose both Waves and 2 Points to enable the LSS strategy we are just cutting again.

Does the conversion of the commercially derived LSS vessels now mean that building the FSS vessels abroad is virtually guaranteed? UK shipbuilding capacity really will now be a problem with the T26, T31, SSN, SSBN, LSS and FSS programmes running concurrently. I suppose it's a good problem to have.

A bit more clarity on the LSS/LSG strategy would be nice but as we are just at the beginning of the concept stage, we will have to wait a while....

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 821
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Aethulwulf » 15 Feb 2019, 20:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: this animation gives a good sense of the space available.


and also of where the hangars could reasonably be placed, without interrupting the flow
- not saying we need all of those LIMs

BAHRI ABHA MAIN DIMENSIONS
Length o.a. (approx.) 225.0 m
Breadth moulded 32.3 m
Draught 8.9 m
Scantling draught 9.5 m
DWT (approx.) 26,000 tonnes
RoRo space capacity 24.800 m2
Container capacity 364 TEU
Service speed (85 % NCR and 15 % sea margin) (approx.) 17 kn
Diesel, Main engine (MCR) 12.500 kW, Aux. engines 2 x 1.500 kWe + 1 x 2.200 kW all at 720 rpm
Shaft generator 2.200 kW

24,800 m2 equals 8850 LiM. That's more 3 Points combined. Doubt this will be a requirement for LSS.

Single shaft design would be an issue as well.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Digger22, Tempest414 and 11 guests