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: 10335
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Sep 2019, 11:55

Dahedd wrote:Rather off topic but I can't see the Waves being replaced in RN service.


I agree (they are on the "sales" list). The singletons will be serviced from frwrd bases. The frwrd bases will be serviced by a dedicated tanker that can deliver all the "57 varieties" in one go (and top up some other bases on the way)
- how does this relate to FLSSs?
- they are the "future sigletons" though given a better armed escort when that kind of need is likely to arise. Hence they need to big enough to be self-contained in all aspects, not just the ship's fuel, for prolonged periods

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Sep 2019, 12:12

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Dahedd wrote:Rather off topic but I can't see the Waves being replaced in RN service.


I agree (they are on the "sales" list). The singletons will be serviced from frwrd bases. The frwrd bases will be serviced by a dedicated tanker that can deliver all the "57 varieties" in one go (and top up some other bases on the way)
- how does this relate to FLSSs?
- they are the "future sigletons" though given a better armed escort when that kind of need is likely to arise. Hence they need to big enough to be self-contained in all aspects, not just the ship's fuel, for prolonged periods


I too agree it all depends on the out come of the current political climate, we should see this by the end of next year one way or another. I can’t see brexit dragging on past the end of January, depending how that goes we could see a year of back and forth over the Scottish issue.

Once these issues have come to ahead we’ll get a better idea of what the waves and FLSS future is. A combined platform of the two could work very well but would need to be very large and it’d be quiet costly to for fill both roles. This is where I keep coming back to the KD design as up until now it’s been the only one that can do this.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Sep 2019, 12:44

ArmChairCivvy wrote:250 troops.
Its 350. Very similar to a Bay or the Prevail MRV.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:two of these for one (the option) of the "carrier-sized" FSS? Money talks?
I would be amazed if it isn't being considered. The argument for building three FSS is clear but if Fort Victoria is retained could a staggered build of two FSS now followed by a third around 2030 help the drumbeat?

I think it's also worth considering how something like an ELLIDA could slot into a LSG.

Jake1992 wrote:- As a directed replacement for the waves these look spot on ( as long as their liquid capacity is close to that of the waves )
They are a completely different vessel to a Wave with the well dock and EMF accommodation but it all depends on how the Wave replacements will fit into the bigger picture.

Jake1992 wrote:With the KDs massive aviation ( 6 x merlin hanger twin chinook deck ) and a replenishment capacity 2/3 to 3/4 that of Fort Victory its only modification for me would be 2-4 extra LCVP size dividend.
The KD's have very modest EMF accommodation so adding more will eat up a lot of LM's. Add a well dock and davits for additional LCVP's and the LM figure will shrink rapidly.

Jake1992 wrote:IMO for FLSS portion of these vessels a well dock is a nice to have but not a necessity where a good size aviation set up is a necessity.
Its down to what RN want and need. The detailed spec for the FLSS isn't clear yet, it might include a well dock or it might not. I think it's fair to say that the intital concepts of the FLSS were designed to match the finance available at the time. Now that the budget is a little more generous, maybe the FLSS design can mature into something more suitable to form a Littoral Strike Group around.

SW1
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 12 Sep 2019, 13:41

Poiuytrewq wrote:Interesting new design concept from BMT.

Could this provide another possible FLSS option to rival Prevail's MRV?

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ds ... ry-vessel/

The specifications aren't clear at this stage but the forward working deck, twin Merlin flight deck and floodable well dock configuration is massively versatile. The double RAS rigs are the icing on the cake.

A solid option for when the Waves are finally replaced even if the FLSS heads in a different direction.


A fwd presence vessel able to facilitate the arrival of a actual fighting task group. As I’ve mentioned this a few times I think it wouldn’t surprise you that I think this concept just about nails it.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Sep 2019, 14:14

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:250 troops.
Its 350. Very similar to a Bay or the Prevail MRV.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:two of these for one (the option) of the "carrier-sized" FSS? Money talks?
I would be amazed if it isn't being considered. The argument for building three FSS is clear but if Fort Victoria is retained could a staggered build of two FSS now followed by a third around 2030 help the drumbeat?

I think it's also worth considering how something like an ELLIDA could slot into a LSG.

Jake1992 wrote:- As a directed replacement for the waves these look spot on ( as long as their liquid capacity is close to that of the waves )
They are a completely different vessel to a Wave with the well dock and EMF accommodation but it all depends on how the Wave replacements will fit into the bigger picture.

Jake1992 wrote:With the KDs massive aviation ( 6 x merlin hanger twin chinook deck ) and a replenishment capacity 2/3 to 3/4 that of Fort Victory its only modification for me would be 2-4 extra LCVP size dividend.
The KD's have very modest EMF accommodation so adding more will eat up a lot of LM's. Add a well dock and davits for additional LCVP's and the LM figure will shrink rapidly.

Jake1992 wrote:IMO for FLSS portion of these vessels a well dock is a nice to have but not a necessity where a good size aviation set up is a necessity.
Its down to what RN want and need. The detailed spec for the FLSS isn't clear yet, it might include a well dock or it might not. I think it's fair to say that the intital concepts of the FLSS were designed to match the finance available at the time. Now that the budget is a little more generous, maybe the FLSS design can mature into something more suitable to form a Littoral Strike Group around.


I understand they are a very different vessels to the waves them selves, what I was getting at is if they have a similar liquid capacity to a wave these would be spot on replacements as there would be no real cut to our replenishment capability while also an increase in other areas.

Yes to modify the KDs in the way I would would eat into the lane meterage but the KDs have a enormous lane meterage at 2000m, nearly double that of a Bay class. This shows there is plenty of space that can be used differently for a RN specked version.

Yes the original concept was done for a budget but one of the key feature of the FLSS is to give any ARG a decent aviation capability and this doesn’t come too cheap so if the choice was a well dock plus 1 merlin hanger or a steal beach and a 4-6 merlin hanger I know what makes more sense to me.

To do a combined FLSS and replenishment vessel would cost though as this is pretty much what KD is and most agree that is a £400m odd vessel, the above is very much knocking on the same door as KD in what it wants to deliver.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Sep 2019, 20:43

SW1 wrote:A fwd presence vessel able to facilitate the arrival of a actual fighting task group. As I’ve mentioned this a few times I think it wouldn’t surprise you that I think this concept just about nails it.
Can you expand on your idea of how this would fit into the Royal Marines new Littoral Strike Role? How would this differ from the LiTM?
Jake1992 wrote:.....if they have a similar liquid capacity to a wave these would be spot on replacements as there would be no real cut to our replenishment capability while also an increase in other areas.
This why the Karel Doorman doesn't have a large EMF. Why would you want your principal troop carrier to be filled with liquids and munitions? Its an accident waiting to happen and hence the reasons they have always been kept separated as much as possible.

This is why I believe the LSG will be made up of multiple vessels. Something along the lines of one or two FLSS, Wave, one or two T31's and possibly a P8. It could be reinforced further with Bays, Albions, SSS/FSS, Tides and T45/T23/T26 if required. Adding bulk liquids into the FLSS is just asking one hull to do too much IMO.

Jake1992 wrote: To do a combined FLSS and replenishment vessel would cost though as this is pretty much what KD is and most agree that is a £400m odd vessel, the above is very much knocking on the same door as KD in what it wants to deliver.
In that case it might be better to retain the Waves and just build another couple of Oceans. How knows, that might be where the FLSS concept leads to in the end. A modest LPH.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Sep 2019, 21:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:A fwd presence vessel able to facilitate the arrival of a actual fighting task group. As I’ve mentioned this a few times I think it wouldn’t surprise you that I think this concept just about nails it.
Can you expand on your idea of how this would fit into the Royal Marines new Littoral Strike Role? How would this differ from the LiTM?
Jake1992 wrote:.....if they have a similar liquid capacity to a wave these would be spot on replacements as there would be no real cut to our replenishment capability while also an increase in other areas.
This why the Karel Doorman doesn't have a large EMF. Why would you want your principal troop carrier to be filled with liquids and munitions? Its an accident waiting to happen and hence the reasons they have always been kept separated as much as possible.

This is why I believe the LSG will be made up of multiple vessels. Something along the lines of one or two FLSS, Wave, one or two T31's and possibly a P8. It could be reinforced further with Bays, Albions, SSS/FSS, Tides and T45/T23/T26 if required. Adding bulk liquids into the FLSS is just asking one hull to do too much IMO.

Jake1992 wrote: To do a combined FLSS and replenishment vessel would cost though as this is pretty much what KD is and most agree that is a £400m odd vessel, the above is very much knocking on the same door as KD in what it wants to deliver.
In that case it might be better to retain the Waves and just build another couple of Oceans. How knows, that might be where the FLSS concept leads to in the end. A modest LPH.


For what the KD is it’s a nice ship and would be a good addition to the fleet just separate from the FLSS IMO.
I can understand the logic of looking at a combined vessel like the KD or Ellida trying to keep what the waves offer while increasing in others areas like HADR and Littoral ops, but again its a risk with the cost.

To me what the KD really screams of being ( especially in a RN fleet ) is a sea base or amphibious support ship, they would pretty much offer the third element of the MARS program the RN originally wanted.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1885
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 12 Sep 2019, 21:34

So, is the FLSS still a thing now Williamson has left? Is there a defined budget and timeframe?

SW1
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 12 Sep 2019, 21:55

It’s a complex area and being flexible I think will be key. It will demand a need to be constantly engaged in areas we consider a priority simple because it can change so rapidly. I don’t think we can go barging into the domain with both feet without knowing what we’re getting into.

Controlling the littoral I guess means having the ability to have a recognised picture of both air, surface and sub surface, so having the ability to launch and recover multiple air, surface and sub surface craft manned and unmanned that can persist allows that picture to be gathered and information acted on by embarked forces.

Likely operated by the RFA I think this has a number of advantages in that it’s a less aggressive posture to engage with countries in certain areas, and a ship that maybe more acceptable for some to be seen cooperating with. Being big it’s able to offer above average hotel facilities to those people stationed away from home for extended periods. Having both dock and flight deck it would offer broad options in strategic mobility to embark and deploy uk or regional forces.

Being able to provide Smaller scale replenishing at sea to local navies who don’t have such capabilities or regional allies allows it to offer enabling capabilities and be involved more in allowing allies to improving there own security without trying to be the dominate player.

Its size and storage capabilities l(ike the Mounts Bay perfectly demonstrated) allows it to act as disasters relief first responder again engaging with locals and building networks. The building of trust and relations and the ability to gather intel allows forewarnings of deterioration of conditions and either with pre stored equipment or with stores/craft flown out allows it to take on a greater security posture, with the added ability albeit somewhat limited to top up warships that may have been rushed to station

I guess the sum of what I’m trying to say is I see littoral strike as local engagement and specific action on high value targets than a more broad scope invasion. It’s the long “cold war” to the short sharp hot high end conflict. The likes of the bays and fort Victoria have been doing this and could continue to but perhaps wrapping in up in a new configuration that incorporates some lessons learned maybe a useful way ahead.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Sep 2019, 22:05

dmereifield wrote:So, is the FLSS still a thing now Williamson has left? Is there a defined budget and timeframe?
The LSG that the FLSS is supposed to form part of is certainly moving ahead. Whether the FLSS is still part of the LSG concept is up in the air.

The crucial question is how will the Future Commando Force operate with the CHF when not operating from the QE's. Albion/Bulwark have no embarked aviation and the Bay's have limited embarked aviation. What is needed is a vessel that can provide the Aviation support needed to support the CHF without relying on QE/PWLS every time.

What that vessel will cost and what it will look like is still up for debate.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Sep 2019, 22:13

SW1 wrote:It’s a complex area and being flexible I think will be key. It will demand a need to be constantly engaged in areas we consider a priority simple because it can change so rapidly. I don’t think we can go barging into the domain with both feet without knowing what we’re getting into.

Controlling the littoral I guess means having the ability to have a recognised picture of both air, surface and sub surface, so having the ability to launch and recover multiple air, surface and sub surface craft manned and unmanned that can persist allows that picture to be gathered and information acted on by embarked forces.

Likely operated by the RFA I think this has a number of advantages in that it’s a less aggressive posture to engage with countries in certain areas, and a ship that maybe more acceptable for some to be seen cooperating with. Being big it’s able to offer above average hotel facilities to those people stationed away from home for extended periods. Having both dock and flight deck it would offer broad options in strategic mobility to embark and deploy uk or regional forces.

Being able to provide Smaller scale replenishing at sea to local navies who don’t have such capabilities or regional allies allows it to offer enabling capabilities and be involved more in allowing allies to improving there own security without trying to be the dominate player.

Its size and storage capabilities l(ike the Mounts Bay perfectly demonstrated) allows it to act as disasters relief first responder again engaging with locals and building networks. The building of trust and relations and the ability to gather intel allows forewarnings of deterioration of conditions and either with pre stored equipment or with stores/craft flown out allows it to take on a greater security posture, with the added ability albeit somewhat limited to top up warships that may have been rushed to station

I guess the sum of what I’m trying to say is I see littoral strike as local engagement and specific action on high value targets than a more broad scope invasion. It’s the long “cold war” to the short sharp hot high end conflict. The likes of the bays and fort Victoria have been doing this and could continue to but perhaps wrapping in up in a new configuration that incorporates some lessons learned maybe a useful way ahead.


So for a vessel to do what you mention above really we’d be looking at something like a KD with a single LCU well dock or a Ellida with a larger aviation capacity say 4-6 merlin / 1-2 chinook. For a pair of these I’d comfortably guess you’d be looking at the £1bn mark.

SW1
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 12 Sep 2019, 22:21

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:It’s a complex area and being flexible I think will be key. It will demand a need to be constantly engaged in areas we consider a priority simple because it can change so rapidly. I don’t think we can go barging into the domain with both feet without knowing what we’re getting into.

Controlling the littoral I guess means having the ability to have a recognised picture of both air, surface and sub surface, so having the ability to launch and recover multiple air, surface and sub surface craft manned and unmanned that can persist allows that picture to be gathered and information acted on by embarked forces.

Likely operated by the RFA I think this has a number of advantages in that it’s a less aggressive posture to engage with countries in certain areas, and a ship that maybe more acceptable for some to be seen cooperating with. Being big it’s able to offer above average hotel facilities to those people stationed away from home for extended periods. Having both dock and flight deck it would offer broad options in strategic mobility to embark and deploy uk or regional forces.

Being able to provide Smaller scale replenishing at sea to local navies who don’t have such capabilities or regional allies allows it to offer enabling capabilities and be involved more in allowing allies to improving there own security without trying to be the dominate player.

Its size and storage capabilities l(ike the Mounts Bay perfectly demonstrated) allows it to act as disasters relief first responder again engaging with locals and building networks. The building of trust and relations and the ability to gather intel allows forewarnings of deterioration of conditions and either with pre stored equipment or with stores/craft flown out allows it to take on a greater security posture, with the added ability albeit somewhat limited to top up warships that may have been rushed to station

I guess the sum of what I’m trying to say is I see littoral strike as local engagement and specific action on high value targets than a more broad scope invasion. It’s the long “cold war” to the short sharp hot high end conflict. The likes of the bays and fort Victoria have been doing this and could continue to but perhaps wrapping in up in a new configuration that incorporates some lessons learned maybe a useful way ahead.


So for a vessel to do what you mention above really we’d be looking at something like a KD with a single LCU well dock or a Ellida with a larger aviation capacity say 4-6 merlin / 1-2 chinook. For a pair of these I’d comfortably guess you’d be looking at the £1bn mark.


No I’m not looking for that level of aviation capability, as I said the ellida concept is about right not looking for more than a pair of merlin sized helicopters or 4 wildcats, it’s a limited commando insertion capability.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 12 Sep 2019, 22:23

Jake1992 wrote:For a pair of these I’d comfortably guess you’d be looking at the £1bn mark.
Or just add decent hangers to a couple of the existing Bays for less than £100m. The Bay's could be replaced in their current roles by something like the Prevail MRV's for minimal cost.

If the money is now available for new-build FLSS, just build more Bays.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1320
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 12 Sep 2019, 23:02

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:It’s a complex area and being flexible I think will be key. It will demand a need to be constantly engaged in areas we consider a priority simple because it can change so rapidly. I don’t think we can go barging into the domain with both feet without knowing what we’re getting into.

Controlling the littoral I guess means having the ability to have a recognised picture of both air, surface and sub surface, so having the ability to launch and recover multiple air, surface and sub surface craft manned and unmanned that can persist allows that picture to be gathered and information acted on by embarked forces.

Likely operated by the RFA I think this has a number of advantages in that it’s a less aggressive posture to engage with countries in certain areas, and a ship that maybe more acceptable for some to be seen cooperating with. Being big it’s able to offer above average hotel facilities to those people stationed away from home for extended periods. Having both dock and flight deck it would offer broad options in strategic mobility to embark and deploy uk or regional forces.

Being able to provide Smaller scale replenishing at sea to local navies who don’t have such capabilities or regional allies allows it to offer enabling capabilities and be involved more in allowing allies to improving there own security without trying to be the dominate player.

Its size and storage capabilities l(ike the Mounts Bay perfectly demonstrated) allows it to act as disasters relief first responder again engaging with locals and building networks. The building of trust and relations and the ability to gather intel allows forewarnings of deterioration of conditions and either with pre stored equipment or with stores/craft flown out allows it to take on a greater security posture, with the added ability albeit somewhat limited to top up warships that may have been rushed to station

I guess the sum of what I’m trying to say is I see littoral strike as local engagement and specific action on high value targets than a more broad scope invasion. It’s the long “cold war” to the short sharp hot high end conflict. The likes of the bays and fort Victoria have been doing this and could continue to but perhaps wrapping in up in a new configuration that incorporates some lessons learned maybe a useful way ahead.


So for a vessel to do what you mention above really we’d be looking at something like a KD with a single LCU well dock or a Ellida with a larger aviation capacity say 4-6 merlin / 1-2 chinook. For a pair of these I’d comfortably guess you’d be looking at the £1bn mark.


No I’m not looking for that level of aviation capability, as I said the ellida concept is about right not looking for more than a pair of merlin sized helicopters or 4 wildcats, it’s a limited commando insertion capability.


I don’t agree here, seeing as one of there main intended roles would be SF ops I see the need for them to be able to operate at least 1 extened range chinook, this leads to it being at least a 3 merlin hanger.

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:For a pair of these I’d comfortably guess you’d be looking at the £1bn mark.
Or just add decent hangers to a couple of the existing Bays for less than £100m. The Bay's could be replaced in their current roles by something like the Prevail MRV's for minimal cost.

If the money is now available for new-build FLSS, just build more Bays.


This could very well be one of the the cheapest and most effective ways to get this capability.
It would omit the replenishment capability but are we sure this is a requirement as things stand ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5778
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 13 Sep 2019, 09:28

Poiuytrewq wrote:If the money is now available for new-build FLSS, just build more Bays.


True, but surely that kind of money isn't kicking about down the back of the sofa?

There's little benefit for new build here, these aren't high performance platforms, so the Nave should take advantage of the cheap second hand market.
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1588
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 13 Sep 2019, 10:18

shark bait wrote:True, but surely that kind of money isn't kicking about down the back of the sofa?

There's little benefit for new build here, these aren't high performance platforms, so the Nave should take advantage of the cheap second hand market.

Even a new Point class hull wouldn't be that expensive, nor should adding an rig-style accomodation block, flight deck and hangar, since they are all adaptations of the existing structure, rather than requiring a partial re-build as happened with Argus, for instance. I would think that the two FLSS together would probably cost less than a single new-build Bay
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Sep 2019, 10:59

My money would still be on two 160 meter Makassar class for around 120 million as said before there are 8 in service and 2 being built cost for the 125 meter ship with flight deck hangar well dock is 45 million dollars I think will could get a lot of ship for our 60 million pounds or 74 million dollars that would add to any LSG

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Sep 2019, 11:06

Jake1992 wrote:This could very well be one of the the cheapest and most effective ways to get this capability.
It would omit the replenishment capability but are we sure this is a requirement as things stand ?
A replenishment capability has never been mentioned for the FLSS. If the two LSG's are to be independent at least in part from the LiTM how are they going to be replenished at sea if the FSS are busy looking after the CSG? It's not clear at present.

If the LSG is to be a 'maximum effort' for the various disturbed components then a certain amount of cross-over with the LiTM is likely.

Something like this,

East Of Suez Littoral Strike Group:

FLSS
Fort Victoria
Wave Ruler
2x T31
P8

West of Suez Littoral Strike Group:

FLSS
3rd FSS
Wave Knight
2x T31
P8

Clearly if the LSG's are structured like this then a replenishment facility is not a crucial requirement.

It's also worth considering that the EoS LSG outlined above has 6 Merlin capable hangers and 5 Merlin capable landing spots. If the FLSS has a 4 Merlin hanger and 2 Chinook landing spots that's gives the LSG a lot of aviation capacity.

This could be configured in many ways but as an example,

4 Merlins
4 Apache
4 Wildcat
400+ EMF
4 to 6 LCVP's
Multitude of RHIBs

It's a formidable force however it's configured.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 13 Sep 2019, 20:34

I’m still a fan of basing it around what we have, so till late 2020s I’d go for the following per group.

Either RFA Argus or RFA Fort Victoria
1 x Wave Class Tanker
1 x Bay Class LSD
2 x T31s

Mid to late 2020s I would then replace with perhaps an enlarged FSS with hanger space for 4 Merlins or 2 Chinooks.

Total aviation would be around 8 Helicopters which is an affordable and significant capability.
"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: 839
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby SW1 » 14 Sep 2019, 11:51

If your deploying 4 or 5 merlins in each of these 2 groups then that is your entire deployable commando helicopter capability. There is then nothing what so ever to put on your second aircraft carrier. There is only 1 asw merlin squadron assigned to the aircraft carriers the other asw merlin Sqn is ship flights and the f35 sqn. If they are assigned to QE and both carriers are in service then POW will assume the role of commando helicopter carrier.

Special forces chinooks are in very short supply and will not embark for long sea voyages they’ll be in and out for specific tasks so provided the flight deck can accommodate them they’re most likely won’t need to be put in a hanger but potentially if absolutely necessary still can by taking the blades off. This is not like assigning normal chinooks for an amphibious landing for which they would use a carrier.

RM commandos use merlin for long range insertion/extraction so having a hanger to accommodate 1 or 2 of these makes more sense as this is more there dedicated role.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 14 Sep 2019, 13:11

SW1, agree with the main thrust of your argument. The way I see it the 2 T31s (assuming that would be the approach), plus the Wave would have a total of 3 Wildcats, possibly 4 if the Bay kept its hangar (but that’s questionable as you’d probably want to maximise deck space).

The old Fort I’s have two landing pads and space for 4 helicopters (admittedly they were Sea Kings) - having something similar but with up to 4 Merlins would suffice IMO for any small op or HADR commitment. If it gets bigger we need the CVFs.
"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: 3278
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Sep 2019, 14:42

Until additional work is carried out on them no Chinooks of any variety are going to be embarked on any naval vessels for any length of time unless you want very large repair bills after each deployment. The same goes for the Apaches.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1587
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Sep 2019, 15:35

SW1 wrote:If your deploying 4 or 5 merlins in each of these 2 groups then that is your entire deployable commando helicopter capability.
Absolutly but forming one of the LSG's would be a maximum effort for the LSG, forming both LSG's at the same time would be unlikely. Combining both LSG's would probably result in a QE joining and the forming of the LiTM. A massively powerful and extremely expensive force to operate for any length of time.

Most of the time the LSG's components could be widely distributed conducting other deployments and only pull together to form the LSG if required. The majority of the time SF Ops from the FLSS would not require the formation of the LSG.

As I see it the LSG concept is really all about saving time by having assets in or near a given area of operation that can react quickly and coherently to influence events. By having one SSS/FSS and one Tide or Wave available to the LSG more time is saved as the FLSS and T31's can steam directly to the area of operation knowing that replenishment is following very shortly behind. Additional troops and helicopters can join the FLSS/T31's or auxiliaries on route.

If properly funded it could give the Royal Marines a very bright future and allow QE/PWLS to concentrate on what they were originally designed to do.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1885
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby dmereifield » 14 Sep 2019, 16:08

Repulse wrote:I’m still a fan of basing it around what we have, so till late 2020s I’d go for the following per group.

Either RFA Argus or RFA Fort Victoria
1 x Wave Class Tanker
1 x Bay Class LSD
2 x T31s

Mid to late 2020s I would then replace with perhaps an enlarged FSS with hanger space for 4 Merlins or 2 Chinooks.

Total aviation would be around 8 Helicopters which is an affordable and significant capability.


No Albions?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1866
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Repulse » 14 Sep 2019, 16:16

dmereifield wrote:No Albions?


Good question, must admit I didn’t think by default the Albion’s would sail with a LSG nor be forward based. If required the Albion’s would take a LSG up to a ARG alongside a CVF in LPH mode. Anyone know the what the vision is?
"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


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests