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.
Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 02 May 2019, 16:59

shotleylad wrote:I would hope so.


Why? We either need to think more creatively or accept we should just stay in the North Atlantic or that NHS/Education/DFiD budgets need to be cut to pay for better kit.
"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

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Scimitar54 » 02 May 2019, 19:40

The last one is the only choice to be made! :mrgreen:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby bobp » 02 May 2019, 19:49

Repulse wrote: NHS/Education/DFiD budgets need to be cut to pay for better kit.


We could increase taxes to pay for more defence..... :mrgreen: :crazy: :geek:

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 May 2019, 22:07

General discussion beckoning?
- great to read stuff like the few above, when trying to catch up last thing in the evening :evil: on the real stuff as 'headlined'

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1608
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 03 May 2019, 11:35

Moved across.
shark bait wrote:It's a compromise. What is more valuable;
five patrol vessels and three support ships
five frigates and two support ships?
Clearly the 5 frigates and 2 FSS is preferable but perhaps another possibility should at least be considered before being discarded.

If we can agree that the objectives are,

1. To introduce a second escort production facility.
2. To produce at least 3 vessels with an SSS capability.
3. To support UK shipbuilding whilst keeping within budget.
4. To provide two Multipurpose Littoral Support Vessels.

Maintaining funding at the current levels, £1.25bn for T31, £1bn for FSS and £200m for FLSS when combined equates to around £2.5bn, what is the optimum outcome?

I think this is one credible option,

1. Build 4 Frigates at £325 each.
2. Build 2 FSS at £300m each outside UK.
3. Build 2 FLSS at £300m each inside the UK.

- At £325m the T31's would have every chance of being credible. The extra £75m could add a hull mounted sonar, improve the propulsion system and also increase the CAMM load to 24.

- A £300m UPC for two FSS vessels built abroad is realistic.

- Building two FLSS vessels with a secondary SSS capability would seem to be a good use of resources. This would give the FLSS vessels a defined role within the LitM group as well as an aviation support role if required. Building these vessels from an adapted Bay design in a Karel Doorman style configuration (without large fuel capacity) for £300m also seems realistic.

Given the size of the budget available this may yet prove to be the best outcome. Of course with an extra £500m and a change of objectives the outcome could be better still.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 04 May 2019, 09:51

another option using the 2.5 billion would be to go like this

1. build 4 T-31 for 330 million
2 . Build 2 160 meter x 24 meter Makassar LPD,s cost 75 million pounds each = 150 million ( or 197 million dollars at todays rate giving a 98 million dollar per ship current Makassar at 122 meters cost 45 million dollars) for FLSS built overseas
3. Build 2 SSS in the UK for 400 million each
4. use money left over to refit B2 rivers with 57mm main gun

budgets split
Type 31 budget =1.32 billion
SSS budget = 800 million
FLSS budget = 150 million
5 x 57mm guns = 35 million
total = 2.305 billion leaving 195 million for program over runs

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 04 May 2019, 12:45

It seems we are still convinced that cuts aren’t coming. With Williamson going and Hammond still in place this is more likely IMO than before. Add to this the NAO concerns on cost overruns on the new SSBNs and increasing cost pressures on other projects such as the F35b then even what seems to have been committed may be just Fantasy.

Another point, is that unless there is a country already in discussions on a T31 purchase then building 4 of anything in a new yard without the hope of additional (money for) RN orders and a very slim chance of export orders is madness - it will be counterproductive to securing the UK shipbuilding industry.

I think it is likely that as part of the decision to add two FLSSs, money was taking from the FSS budget which will stop at 2. This is ok in the short term (where money will be v.tight) as Ft Victoria still has another 10-15 years in her.
"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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 04 May 2019, 20:33

The whole idea of the FLSS and having anything east of Suez other than a few personnel manning a few admin blocks needs to be at least put on hold but ideally rethought until the MoD has sufficient resources to carry out its core duties.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Scimitar54 » 04 May 2019, 23:27

Perhaps you think that those who wish us harm will put their activities on hold while we bask in a false sense of security. If you don't think we have enough of (almost everything) to deal with the threats we face then stop bellyaching about it and do something. :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 05 May 2019, 02:51

And just what is an individual who posts on here supposed to do. My gripe is that we are struggling to cover our existing commitments to NATO and yet our Government wants to spread out limited resources even thinner by adopting this aspiration to be a global player with force stationed around the world. With our current funding levels we need to ensure we can effectively cover our core commitments before looking further afield.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 May 2019, 04:42

Lord Jim wrote:yet our Government wants to spread out limited resources even thinner by adopting this aspiration to be a global player
Not too dissimilar from the way that EU's CSP is evolving
... for once we could be "an equal partner". Trump wants costs +50% surcharge. I thought he was from NYC; not an Al Capone from Chicago :lol:

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby jedibeeftrix » 06 May 2019, 09:42

Lord Jim wrote:My gripe is that we are struggling to cover our existing commitments to NATO and yet our Government wants to spread out limited resources even thinner by adopting this aspiration to be a global player with force stationed around the world. With our current funding levels we need to ensure we can effectively cover our core commitments before looking further afield.


My problem with this is that we ARE as we imagine ourselves a global player, and existing threats via Nato Art5 are NOT an existential threat.
This leads to only one conclusion if the fulcrum of global geopolitics moves away from europe to asia - we must go with it.

So, yes, we are going to spread limited resources more thinly, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do to spread them thinner in europe.
To give an extreme example - tho indicative of the direction of travel - make the heavy armour response to Art5 a Reserves activity.

Unless of course we now cease to consider ourselves a 'Great Power' with global UNSC responsiblities... in which case we can settle comfortably into the role of Poland+Norway, where HMF concentrate on hanging-tight for Reforger 2.0.

Not a future I want.

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 06 May 2019, 10:02

I know I’m biased, but the primary balance of a maritime based global presence and a UK / BOT based Army and Air Force has always made sense to me for the UK.

It means we can be engaged globally and have an influence without having to get involved in other people’s wars and putting boots and wheels on the ground.

Iraq and Afghanistan both showed that the UK can contribute to land operations (SFs in particular), but any significant participation requires time to gear up from the current position as any peacetime budget will never be enough to have the kit and size required.
"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

SW1
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 06 May 2019, 10:28

There is a lot of emotion involved with terms like great power, global player, first rater, tier 1 military. I personally class them all as political PR of playing to there perceived political base. A lot of it’s being going on the past 18 months to 2 years and it’s all nonsense.


We already trade with the countries across the world, next time your in the supermarket look were the country of origin is on what you buy not to mention electronic interaction. We already travel across the world have diplomatic missions across the world. We conduct training across the world. Have done for decades will do in the future.

Population numbers means over the coming decades wealth and influence will move to a Pacific century most of the worlds population live there. We will be and are involved but we are not a dominant player thereand won’t ever be.

What we are not going to do is militarily dictate events anywhere but locally to the uk as we are not a superpower. Scale is everything and that is where most fall down when discussing things. We are a major regional military power with the ability to deploy globally at small scale. Very few countries are able to do that, but it needs to be recognised that deploying small scale to the back yard of regional 1000lb gorillas is a time to tread very carefully not for pr bluster. None of this changes if we buy a extra ship or an extra Sqn of planes or battalion of tanks.


Whatever we deploy anywhere will come from the UK, and as there is a finite budget we need it to be usable against the broadest range operations, that probably means we need to take a little of the top and bottom of the spectrum. I mentioned this before we never left the Pacific region we’ve remained in Brunei even after the end of Cold War and the hand over of Hong Kong. If we are looking to that part of the world it’s what we do to support our lead partners in the region of Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, American were a bolt on to those nations they’re not a bolt on to us.

On land air and sea were are a high end 1 shot limited time capability like it or not. If we send the carrier group on a cruise to the Far East then that’s all we do that year, we cant send another one to Africa or the gulf or where ever. You make a choice what/were u think is the most appropriate place to send that option. The rest of time we offer lower level security, engagement, logistics and intelligence support to allies with the diplomatic and political importance that brings. We have things to offer in the Far East but it should be something much more rounded in thought that just sending a naval vessel.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1608
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 May 2019, 10:31

jedibeeftrix wrote:This leads to only one conclusion if the fulcrum of global geopolitics moves away from europe to asia - we must go with it.
Bingo. This is clearly the direction of travel but is the Treasury convinced enough to fund this expansion east? Certainly under this administration the answer is a definite NO.

Regardless, with the combined FSS, FLSS and T31 budgets amounting to around £2.5bn I think a good outcome is still achievable. Its just a case of identifying where to spend that money to best meet the UK's objectives going forward.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2019, 10:49

jedibeeftrix wrote:This leads to only one conclusion if the fulcrum of global geopolitics moves away from europe to asia - we must go with it.

So, yes, we are going to spread limited resources more thinly, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do to spread them thinner in europe.
To give an extreme example - tho indicative of the direction of travel - make the heavy armour response to Art5 a Reserves activity.


Pretty much in line with what I think. Not quite tanks [manoeuvre warfare is difficult to practice over a weekend] but other heavies and their logs into the reserves, yes.

Those who follow Europe and Asia (well, the US comes in automatically, in both cases) may have noticed the emergence of the term "Indo-Pacific" as opposed to Asia Pacific? Indo-Pacific is - from one perspective - to emphasise that India is part of the containment of China. First of all the de-emphasis of S. Asia as opposed to SE & NE is 'old hat' regardless of the perspective used. The 5th fleet is now effectively a rotation from the 7th. Second, the much-maligned SIPRI figures do tell a story:
As per usual "The top military spender in the world is the United States, which spent $649bn on its forces last year [2018]. The US military spending, however, has decreased by 17pc over the past decade, the report said.

It is followed by China (around $250bn), Saudi Arabia (around $67.6bn), India ($66.5bn) and France ($63.8bn). These five countries accounted for 60pc of the global military spending."
- elsewhere on these pages, Russia not appearing in the Top 5 has been explained
- France has got past us because they pay for all of their deterrent; no worries, the Dreadnoughts will push us past them (or the rest of defence will get cut?)


According to the report, India's military spending, which rose by 3.1pc between 2017-18, was "largely motivated by tensions and rivalry with Pakistan and China".

Despite the increase from last year, India's military burden was the lowest since the 1960s and made up for 2.4pc of its GDP."
- this last bit shows that soon they will be cruising comfortably at the 2% level (while in absolute terms growing past us... not that all monies are spent there to a good effect)

PS my inside quotation commenting is indicated in italalics

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2019, 10:57

SW1 wrote:something much more rounded in thought that just sending a naval vessel.

agree v much with this broader thought,
while being pedantic
SW1 wrote: If we send the carrier group on a cruise to the Far East then that’s all we do that year, we cant send another one to Africa or the gulf or where ever.
the two indicated regions definitely can be part of the same cruise... we even have a turn-around station in Duqm for that; the carriers' second home. May be the third one will be available 'free of charge' if anything comes of this:
"Two again [when the stated strategy for two decades has been three carriers]

May 6/19: New Carrier? India plans to build an aircraft carrier along the lines of the British HMS Queen Elizabeth as part of the „Make in India“ negotiations. The Indian Navy wants to buy detailed plans for the 65,000-ton British warship to build a so-called “copycat supercarrier“.
- the snippet from DID, who picked it up from Sunday Mirror ... do they have a defence correspondent :?:

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2019, 11:04

Poiuytrewq wrote:combined FSS, FLSS and T31 budgets

Quite right to group them all together. Nato reaches from the Barents Sea to the Tropic of Cancer ( no chasing of Capricorns! :D ), and only for Ops/ presence further out we need any/ all of those.
- our presence in the Gulf, at the scale it has been, neatly falls within this definition:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... er.svg.png
... but we would need to buy HMS Clyde as per Repulse were all those three budgets nix'ed :)

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 06 May 2019, 11:13

SW1, not sure if it comes over but I agree with what you are saying. The UK plays (and should play) a contributing role globally not a militarily leading one.

All I would add is that having a naval support facility in Singapore and a forward based minor ship / RFA or two is probably more appropriate, effective and affordable than putting even a flight of Typhoons in the region on a permanent basis.

Also, I actually think the fact that both the RAN and RCN (and ultimately possibly in the some form the RNZN) have chosen the T26 design, could give greater interoperability opportunities. Embedding a RN T26 in the RAN and western RCN fleets and using their support facilities could be a good way of getting real forward (contributory) presence at an affordable cost, more so than the T31 IMO.
"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

Online
User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1889
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 06 May 2019, 11:18

ArmChairCivvy, agree with your point, but the FSS would still be required by the Carriers if the operated in the North Atlantic IMO, just perhaps two would be enough.
"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

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Scimitar54 » 06 May 2019, 12:29

In a hostilities situation and if operations are at a high intensity, it is highly likely that 2 x Tides and 2 x SSS may be required to keep 1 x CSG adequately supplied. Carrier Strike must not be made any less credible by cutting back on the ability to re-supply it. All 3 x FSS are required. Remember, that the SSS have to be able to take-on Fuel & Stores as well as transferring them to the Carrier and other ships in the CSG. This would be the modern day equivalent of "Spoiling the Ship for a H'apeth of tar". In peaceable times of course,1 of each would indeed be enough. :idea: As for FLSS, I would rather see the missing "Bay" replaced and 2 x Bays being used for this role.

SW1
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 06 May 2019, 14:31

Repulse wrote:SW1, not sure if it comes over but I agree with what you are saying. The UK plays (and should play) a contributing role globally not a militarily leading one.

All I would add is that having a naval support facility in Singapore and a forward based minor ship / RFA or two is probably more appropriate, effective and affordable than putting even a flight of Typhoons in the region on a permanent basis.

Also, I actually think the fact that both the RAN and RCN (and ultimately possibly in the some form the RNZN) have chosen the T26 design, could give greater interoperability opportunities. Embedding a RN T26 in the RAN and western RCN fleets and using their support facilities could be a good way of getting real forward (contributory) presence at an affordable cost, more so than the T31 IMO.


We have insufficient frigates or fighters to permanently assign them to the Far East unless we take the decision not to contribute to either the Baltic air policing or snmg1. We could make that decision but you don’t guard the end of the street and leave the back door open.

To me you put agreements or logistics and support in place in the regions you wish to deploy your fighting elements too.

If I was looking at the Far East I would be looking at a joint service and engagement strategy. If I was looking for a purely naval prospective of what I may send out that way right now I would be considering sending out there RFA fort Victoria or HMS Echo.

SW1
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 06 May 2019, 14:34

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:something much more rounded in thought that just sending a naval vessel.

agree v much with this broader thought,
while being pedantic
SW1 wrote: If we send the carrier group on a cruise to the Far East then that’s all we do that year, we cant send another one to Africa or the gulf or where ever.
the two indicated regions definitely can be part of the same cruise... we even have a turn-around station in Duqm for that; the carriers' second home. May be the third one will be available 'free of charge' if anything comes of this:
"Two again [when the stated strategy for two decades has been three carriers]

May 6/19: New Carrier? India plans to build an aircraft carrier along the lines of the British HMS Queen Elizabeth as part of the „Make in India“ negotiations. The Indian Navy wants to buy detailed plans for the 65,000-ton British warship to build a so-called “copycat supercarrier“.
- the snippet from DID, who picked it up from Sunday Mirror ... do they have a defence correspondent :?:


They could do both in so much as they can sail past, I would be inclined to head west thru the Panama Canal to the Far East exercising the air-group on US ranges on the way.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 06 May 2019, 22:42

Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with us re-establishing ourselves as a global player in military terms rather than mainly political and economic ones, but we need an uplift in funding to do so in any meaningful way. Australia's contribution to operations in the Gulf, a single warship and detachment of F/A-18s showed that countries desire to be seen as part of something bigger, but such operations are more for political than military goals.

What is being proposed here is the same in reverse, we would should our desire to be seen as a willing ally, bringing our Political, economic and finally military capabilities into play, but with the latter we would be making only a token contribution. Yes we could send the Carrier Group, ground forces and a larger air component, but these are one shot assets and even then they are fragile. If we ever go down that route we have to go balls in and send the maximum available, and that will leave the cupboard bare for operations anywhere else.

Our Politicians almost want to return to the Victorian idea of Gunboat Diplomacy to show out Global Presence, but instead of sending a Gunboat, we would be sending a RHIB with a single Marine armed with a L-85A3. It ticks the politics box and shows the flag, but is unable to have any true military impact. I just hop we do not evolve our overseas doctrine into one where we have a small force/outpost that is allowed to be damaged/destroyed, and then avenged by a larger one being sent from the UK AKA Gordon Pasha.

Of course if funding goes up and the assets available to HMF increases then thigs improve, but we will never again have sufficient military force to be able to bring a military force of a size able to make a impact in more than one area at any one time. Even then we are going to be very reliant of the support of allies and have to be forever conscious of the fragility of many of our capabilities and their inability to suffer any attrition.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10425
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 19 May 2019, 09:18

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:We now have a disjointed and inefficient although still highly effective Amphibious fleet and the current proposal is to add an additional two FLSS vessels on top. Clearly the outcome of the FSS and FLSS programmes will be vital in determining the effectiveness and potential of the LitM group and the Royal Marines.


Lord Jim wrote:for launching small scale operations either by SF or RM with the latter either for raiding or pathfinder style missions ahead of the main landing.
Quite, and main landing does not need to be [initially] from ships... the Ruskies have got it wonderfully right with "desantniki" which covers all formations that "land": airborne, air-landed and their marines
Lord Jim wrote: the RM are no the USMC, are trained to operate totally differently and to try to use them in the way the USMC operate would be the greatest folly, and ignore their true capabilities.
... aren't you (by now) making the case for the FLSS?


Reactivating these lines of thought (apologies for a long-ish post), now that two xav vids have been posted about the Damen so-called “cross over” design – one from the year the concept was launched and one now, hot off the 'printing press' and only days old. They have a 5500 tonne version (one of the many) that is close in size to what the Arrowhead is in the proposal for T-31. Crossing over to 'amphibiosity' even that fairly sizeable one only manages a back end ramp capable of launch / recovery of LCVP sized craft... which would include CB90s. The Finnish Jehu is a deep-V so using a ramp for it :roll: ; seaworthiness would be much improved, though ;) .

But the problem (from now, until the early '30s) isn't the shipping , but what goes into them (RM?) and crewing. Not too different from the carriers, and one way to solve the problem is to do cross-substitution , at times, and across 'duties'... which of course is the plan.

Moving from amphibiosity to FLSS (80% overlap, but different missions), the SBS aside, of the RM only Service Reconnaissance Squadron, Mountain and Arctic Warfare [which is a cadre, not a deployable unit], 539 Assault Squadron and 30Cdo IX Gp – these are the units that actually do a Commando role.


So here we see where the FLSS fit
- as after identifying the major sources of capital and operational costs for amphibious and air assault capabilities, they are clearly flowing from the specialist amphibious shipping and vertical lift.

Experience with OCEAN (a tweaked Invincible hull, when the 'production line' was still running hot, with cheap stuff 'piled on top') suggests that we should find a donor hull, and then extend the production run with modifications. Like the mid-ship 'plug' of ten mtrs in the Damen design (actually two of them, if needed) that would create the room for C2 should one or several of more warlike FLSS designs - compared to Points' conversions - be required to be able to step into the LitM Carrier's (PoW) C2 role as and when it is docked, e.g. for a refit.
- the plug - or two - would also create the real estate on the top for all the gizmos that go with C2, comms wise. Whether within the deployed joint force, or to Northwood.

On the vertical lift side (yes, everyone knows that helicopters are expensive... and even more so to run) large numbers of support and transport helicopters would be an embarrassment if dedicated solely to 16 Air Assault
- perhaps the reason why the newest batch of Chinooks will be of the SOCOM fitout (version) and useable in smaller 'penny packets' with Special Forces. I (upthread) just enlarged :) the SFSG with more units that can be afloat for extended periods. The MoD might adopt the idea; who knows? VFM :idea:


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adam, diaoul2, Google [Bot], RB211, Repulse, silabario, somtec, Timmymagic and 19 guests