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
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 04 Jul 2020, 16:12

I would not pay a single penny to reduce the capability of the LPDs by removing its boat carrying capability, especially when a civilian ship purchase (given the current market) and conversion into an ASS would be probably be similar in cost.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Jul 2020, 16:52

The way I see it is short term Argus will soon go with no replacement and the QEs + Fort Vic will be tied together so the question is how to provide aviation for LRG on the cheap and gives the best all round for the RN.

Option 1 -
Bring back the 2 points and convert the to LSS or convert 2 of the remaining 4.


Option 2
Add aviation to either the Albion’s or the Bays.

For me option 2 is the best route to go as it makes best use of what we’ve got while using the most flexible vessels we have.
I’d go for adding a full width by 20m hanger the the Albion’s to acomodate 3-4 merlins, while reducing the flight deck to a twin merlin / single chinook deck.
IMO this would give the LRG a very flexible vessel while giving the RN a reason needed to keep the Albion’s.



Long term I’d look to replace all 5 amphibs with a split class based on the same 200m by 30m hull all with hangers of 2 different sizes based on the split.

I can’t see a direct replacement for Argus but if money’s is there I’d go for replacing the waves and the then lost Argus with 2 Karel Doornmans. These would offer the aviation capability of argue, replenishment capability better than a wave and twice the Lane metrage of a Bay.

The long term ability of 2 LRGs consisting of 1 LPD, 1 LSD and 1 KD that between them could hold up to 12 plus merlins, 5 plus LCUs and 10 LCVPs / CB90s would be of great use and give reasonable power projectio out side of a CSG.
A KD stationed east of the Suaz would also be a good help to allies that lack in the replenishment department.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 04 Jul 2020, 19:36

2 Karel Doormans would probably be four to six times more expensive than an Argus replacement. The LPDs are still relatively young and can probably do another 20 years of service. An LPD, Argus and LSD would make a decent LRG, 2 LPDs, Argus and 3 LSDs plus a CVF is a first class ASG.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 04 Jul 2020, 19:51

The albions are getting on for 20 years old. If the choice is to fwd deploy vessels then they need to be efficient, simple to operate and reliable. This has all been proven with the bay class vessels and due to the nature of how RFA crewing works they are the best choice. If aviation facilities are to be added then either a bigger rubb shelter or a lift maybe likely. This is of course all prefixed with the fact given the budget any of these vessels bays or albions survive which is doubtful at present without cuts elsewhere.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 04 Jul 2020, 20:02

Repulse wrote:The LPDs are still relatively young and can probably do another 20 years of service.


SW1 wrote:The albions are getting on for 20 years old. If the choice is to fwd deploy vessels then they need to be efficient, simple to operate and reliable.



I usually try not to quote without providing a link - but this was back on the NavWeapons forum so there's no way it will have survived. But I can definitely remember Richard Beedel posting comments about the build quality being really poor and the RN accepting them into service without the necessary rectification.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jul 2020, 21:08

Lord Jim wrote:the Merlin is and will remain our primary amphibious aviation support platform.

... until 2030

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6015
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 06 Jul 2020, 09:43

Jensy wrote:From my decidedly non-engineering background, I propose three ways of potentially going about providing enhanced aviation support, with costs and complexity rising massively with capability:


Aviation capacity is not the problem. The Navy has got more capacity, and fewer aircraft than it's had in decades. I expect the RN could fit all their serviceable aircraft on one ship!

All this does is spend money that doesn't exist on a problem that doesn't exist. Hooray!

To be simple, the LPD's are too resources intensive for a Navy that is more bothered about carrier operations, so the marines need a cheaper ride.
@LandSharkUK

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 06 Jul 2020, 12:49

sure, but that cheaper read better include a collective total of at least 8 berth well docks - with the intention of using fast LCU craft.
or, perhaps a mix of 4 berth well docks, and some of these stern-beaching LST's (provided they can transit with a taskforce and deploy a company...?).

that could be a class of four LSD+ with 2 berth well-dock, or something else, but i'm not persuaded that grinning manfully round a mouthful of commando dagger while clinging to the side of a FAC is a sufficiently useful future.
in the words of Gabby - becoming a master of foreplay with no interest in doing the main act.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jensy » 06 Jul 2020, 16:35

shark bait wrote:
Jensy wrote:From my decidedly non-engineering background, I propose three ways of potentially going about providing enhanced aviation support, with costs and complexity rising massively with capability:


Aviation capacity is not the problem. The Navy has got more capacity, and fewer aircraft than it's had in decades. I expect the RN could fit all their serviceable aircraft on one ship!

All this does is spend money that doesn't exist on a problem that doesn't exist. Hooray!

To be simple, the LPD's are too resources intensive for a Navy that is more bothered about carrier operations, so the marines need a cheaper ride.


Just to clarify Shark Bait,

Was only proposing that as a 'cheaper alternative', to keeping the LDPs 'and' introducing specialist aviation support ships to accompany them.

Personally, moving forward, I think platforms designed for small-scale 'raiding' should be pretty much self-sustaining and only need perhaps one escort ship to keep them safe. Otherwise they're just a drain on carrier ops and other deployments.

With the size of the navy destined to keep shrinking, we need to find new ways of making do with less, not trying to do more with what we have.

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Jul 2020, 16:43

I would agree in part that with the two carriers we have loads of space for RN types even RAF and AAC as well but for me we come back to the fact that we would need both carriers one in strike fit and the other in LPH and if we don't have both then we would be pushed and operational tasks would be tripping over each other on the deck. So for me we will still need a third flat top and four LSD's the key for me would be 10 x Caiman-90's.

With one 200 x 40 meter LHA and 4 x LSD's replacing the 2 Albion's , Argus and the 3 Bays this could allow 2 x LSD's to carry out the LRG role at all times and the LHA/ LPH to fit in with the 2 Strike carrier to ensure 2 flat tops at all times

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 06 Jul 2020, 16:53

Tempest414 wrote:I would agree in part that with the two carriers we have loads of space for RN types even RAF and AAC as well but for me we come back to the fact that we would need both carriers one in strike fit and the other in LPH and if we don't have both then we would be pushed and operational tasks would be tripping over each other on the deck. So for me we will still need a third flat top and four LSD's the key for me would be 10 x Caiman-90's.

With one 200 x 40 meter LHA and 4 x LSD's replacing the 2 Albion's , Argus and the 3 Bays this could allow 2 x LSD's to carry out the LRG role at all times and the LHA/ LPH to fit in with the 2 Strike carrier to ensure 2 flat tops at all times


I wouldn’t say no to that but my worry about a 3rd flat top is as always it putting a QE at risk of the chopping block. This is the reason I always push for decent aviation facilities on the Albion and Bay replacements.
If the Albion replacements have a 5-6 merlin hanger and the Bay replacements a 2-3 merlin hanger we could muster 16-21 merlins of available hanger space with out risking a QE.


All this going to depend on how true this supposed report on cuts are though. If HMG are serious about spending their way out of the down turn then cutting defence would fly in the face of this as pumping money in to defence would give a boost to UK manufacturing with the added benefit of building up a strong deterrent in a rapidly worsening world.

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Jul 2020, 17:20

Jake1992 wrote:my worry about a 3rd flat top is as always it putting a QE at risk of the chopping block.


We as nation we really need to get over this fear of putting thing at risk as it is an ever decreasing capability hole. we can't have the LPH we need because we might lose a carrier we can't fit out type 31 properly because we might lose more type 26 we can't have the number of F-35B we need because we might lose some Typhoon's or Tempest's we really need to start identing the need and build what is needed

What should of happened way back in the day is we should have built 4 250 x 50 meter LHDs to replace the two Invincible carrier's Ocean and Albion

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Jul 2020, 18:50

We need to remember that the use of the Carriers to support amphibious operations has been quietly dropped with no work now being done to modify either to support this role. They could still provide a transport to ship rotary craft into theatre though.

serge750
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby serge750 » 06 Jul 2020, 20:35

Maybe they decided it was a less than good idea Except to Lili-pad to another ship pick up the troops then to the beach, but if the idea is smaller forces then it may not been worth spending the money on such a big target ?

But probably thought we got no money so lets not spend it !!!

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 06 Jul 2020, 23:49

You'd have to be effing nuts to use QE or POW as an LPH. Nuts.

Be like taking Invincible or Hermes inside San Carlos Water.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 07 Jul 2020, 09:27


Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Jul 2020, 10:52

interesting would like to know how far out they planned to launch the helicopter force also how many if any of the Tarawa class LHA's where also taking part in this operation. This aside it shows to me that as I have said before any puma replacement needs to be able of operating off the carriers.

I think it is also now clear that the UK is going to use Chinooks from the carriers with this in mind it is time to start a study into replacing the 10 oldest aircraft with 10 new with folding rotors and fit to go to sea

Online
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Jul 2020, 11:15

so it looks like only the LPH USS Inchon took part in the Haiti operation the remaining 9 big deck amphibs where already deployed or in overhaul at the time meaning the US had to use the carriers and army helicopters

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 07 Jul 2020, 16:27

SW1 wrote:https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-two-super-carriers-became-floating-army-h-1647968681


1994

Threat

US

Sigh.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Ron5 » 07 Jul 2020, 16:30

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-two-super-carriers-became-floating-army-h-1647968681


1994

Threat

US

Sigh.


Future

For real

UK

Nuts, effing nuts.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abc123, albedo and 23 guests