Future Littoral Strike Ships

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

The thread relates to the “Future Littoral Strike Ships” which we’ve strayed far from, but what the discussion shows is that everything is linked. I cannot see this concept seeing the light of day unless we use what we’ve got (the LPDs) or making cuts elsewhere (the T31) , or joining up requirements (the T31 or future MHC platform).
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: I cannot see this concept seeing the light of day unless we use what we’ve got (the LPDs) or making cuts elsewhere (the T31) , or
You could have saved the two 'ORs' and the first one would stand on its own?
-rotation, or no rotation
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You could have saved the two 'ORs' and the first one would stand on its own?
-rotation, or no rotation
Possibly - it depends on how much budget is available; I was being hopeful and saying that there’s money for two of the following: both LPDs active, 5 T31s or two future FLSSs.
”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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:there’s money for two of the following: both LPDs active, 5 T31s or two future FLSSs.
I don't get it:
- the delta (from today) is about £24 million as per FOI "Albion class £24 million"
- 5 T£1s in the water: £ 2 bn
- £35 mln to design, but up to £600 mln per hull (sounds like a lot; what the heck is the design! Not the one we have been shown?)

How can these items appear on the same line of text? What's the logic
- this is clearly an optimising under a hard constraint type of question?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy, A fair point. The last two (T31 and FLSS) are similar expenditure. The reason why I group in the two LPDs is primarily due to the crewing requirements - I would hope with it would be some money left for an Argus replacement and another T26 :D
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

I tend to agree we will not be getting a FLSS anytime soon but rather getting by with what we have with a few modifications. The question is do we use the LPDs or the Bays as stand ins. Which would be the cheapest to run and the most flexible after a limited amount of modification? Could we afford to carry out more substantial modifications to the Bays? Would be modify all three ships or just the one to see how the idea works in practice. Then hopefully in the 2030s we may actually see the start of out replacement Amphibious force, with possibly more but smaller ships to carry and support the Royal Marines with their new doctrine.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim, my view is the Bays are extended logistical civilian platforms whereas the LPDs have been designed as high intensity war fighting platforms - I don’t have to think twice about where to put our money.
”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

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jensy »

Repulse wrote:Lord Jim, my view is the Bays are extended logistical civilian platforms whereas the LPDs have been designed as high intensity war fighting platforms - I don’t have to think twice about where to put our money.
If a cost-effective means of providing permanent hangars and aviation support on the Albions were found, then the entire FLSS concept should be dropped.

As Royal Navy ships go they haven't had particularly hard lives and I'd expect, with only one in service at a time, could last a lot longer than originally planned (mid 30s according to the NSS).

Seems that there are plenty of more deserving areas to invest whatever funds would be directed to this project.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

Jensy wrote:If a cost-effective means of providing permanent hangars and aviation support on the Albions were found
My view is that with two CVFs, an Argus replacement (in a Aviation Support Ship role), and RFA Fort Victoria the RN will have enough aviation support.
”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: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote:
Jensy wrote:If a cost-effective means of providing permanent hangars and aviation support on the Albions were found
My view is that with two CVFs, an Argus replacement (in a Aviation Support Ship role), and RFA Fort Victoria the RN will have enough aviation support.
I’d argue that since Argue will be going with out replacement and Fort Vic will be tied to the carriers having all your aviation capability in one place at any time is madness and very limiting.

Having a hanger for at least 3 merlins / 1 chinook on the Albion’s would not only increase their flexibility but that if the fleet as a whole.

Do we really want to have to send the carriers somewhere every time a few helos are needed ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:providing permanent hangars
The size, as of now, 7 sq.m... I guess for something that rolls on wheels, to the side of the helicopters
- how would you grow it from there?
Jensy wrote: they haven't had particularly hard lives
One of the hardest lives (for a ship) is just to sit idle.... the last 'bring back' with no upgrades cost £40 mln :!:
Jensy wrote:Seems that there are plenty of more deserving areas to invest whatever funds would be directed to this project.
yep, keep things rolling as they are (someone must have counted the net-net between ongoing cost and ramping up max capacity :?: )
Jake1992 wrote:will be tied to the carriers having all your aviation capability in one place at any time is madness and very limiting.
True... and the proposals about changing that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jensy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: The size, as of now, 7 sq.m... I guess for something that rolls on wheels, to the side of the helicopters
- how would you grow it from there?
Now this is where my "cost-effective" caveat comes in! As I understand, at present the most that can be achieved is keeping something Wildcat-sized on the vehicle deck and winching it up to the flight deck. Slow, labour intensive and prevents the ramp from being used for any other purpose.

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:

1) Delete the rear two landing craft davits and replace them with two 20m x 6m box hangars (roughly Type 23 size) for maintaining two Merlins, with any additional helos stored outside (as they are now).

2) Build a large multifunction hangar (c.25m x 28m) over the forward, half of the flight deck, with space for storing and maintaining up to four Merlin and shift the heavy crane back to the rear half of the deck. Relocate the lost landing spot to the hangar roof so that dual helicopter operations can still be conducted, though with reduced access to the 'upstairs pad'.

3) The fantasy LHD conversion: Completely convert the rear of the ships, with the current flight deck replaced with a large hangar and twin Merlin-sized aircraft lifts. Storage for up to ten helicopters of varying sizes and secure magazines for Apache or Wildcat. Will likely require substantial structural changes and buoyancy measures taken to address shifting the centre of gravity.
Of course all will require some sacrifice of the Albion's primary amphibious role, with accommodation and other spaces needed for a larger aviation complement on board and in the case of option '1)', losing half the LCVP davits.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote: they haven't had particularly hard lives
One of the hardest lives (for a ship) is just to sit idle.... the last 'bring back' with no upgrades cost £40 mln
This is a valid concern (for humans too). Have the lessons not be learnt though? Thought the inactive ship was now being somewhat maintained in mothballs, rather than just being left to rust?
Repulse wrote: My view is that with two CVFs, an Argus replacement (in a Aviation Support Ship role), and RFA Fort Victoria the RN will have enough aviation support.
I'd be inclined to agree but I don't think Fort Vic is going to last till the end of the decade and have a strong suspicion that at the very least, Argus's aviation training role is going to be outsourced to something small, black, yellow and with Serco written on the side.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:and prevents the ramp from being used for any other purpose.
... good detail, had no idea of that
Jensy wrote:
1) Delete the rear two landing craft davits and replace them with two 20m x 6m box hangars (roughly Type 23 size) for maintaining tw[b]o Merlins[/b], with any additional helos stored outside (as they are now).OR not, just making the spots available
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

I would say if you fitted a 20 x 20 meter hangar on the Albion class you could still fit 3 Merlin's in it and operate 2 Merlin's off 2 spots and just maybe if they landed side on instead of inline 2 Chinooks

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by S M H »

Tempest414 wrote:I would say if you fitted a 20 x 20 meter hangar on the Albion class you could still fit 3 Merlin's in it and operate 2 Merlin's off 2 spots and just maybe if they landed side on instead of inline 2 Chinooks
Having been on them at fitting out stage at Barrow. There would have a lot of work to the superstructure bellow the working deck to support the hangar. It would not be as simple conversion.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Tempest414 »

Many thanks for the insight helps right that off as to costly

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Jensy wrote:and in the case of option '1)', losing half the LCVP davits.
will that really be a great loss to the primary amphibious role in future?

connectors need to be faster in future - to operate further out - and that means Caimen90 LCU's whizzing along at 22kts, not LCVP's pootling along at half that.

Remaining davits for use with CB90, as LCVP's have little utility in future (sure, we'll keep some in a shed somewhere...).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

My view is leave the LPDs as they are, all well-dock and davit capacity is a big part of the unique and valuable capabilities that they provide.

Unless there are larger plans being secretly worked on (with cash already assigned) Littoral Strike Group and Amphibious Strike Group concepts seem to have been merged (and watered down) into a single Littoral Response Group concept.

The “Group” bit is still important, and I suspect it will be scalable from everyday two smaller forward deployed groups to something larger (a more extreme one off).

For the day-to-day “West of Suez” Group, operating primarily off Norway, the Baltic’s and Mediterranean, any group could be supported with aviation assets primarily land based and kept on deck for short periods (perhaps in a temporary Bay like shelter). Add also an RFA which can carry 3-4 Merlins and it is a credible group.

For the day-to-day “East of Suez” Group, operating in the Indian Ocean and Far East, a separate Aviation Support Ship (similar to RFA Argus) is required.

In a “war” scenario the two groups could be joined, along with combination with one of the two CBGs and additional LSDs. This would become the effective Amphibious Strike Group.

With extending even further the lifetime of RFA Argus (or finding the money for a replacement), this can be done with pretty much what we have.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by SW1 »

Would suggest a possible option maybe a scissor lift from flight deck to vehicle deck maybe be workable for helicopter servicing.

However should they want to keep an lpd then it’s likely a carrier will go they simply won’t be able to have both.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:However should they want to keep an lpd then it’s likely a carrier will go they simply won’t be able to have both.
I don’t believe that is the only option. It will take some political strength and direction, but it is more important than ever the UK has a laser focus on its strategic direction.

To remain relevant, the UK and RN needs to have first class capabilities that are valued by allies and capable for fighting at the top tier. We have to be realistic with the scale, but for the RN CEPP has to be central to this - part of this is the ability to strike on land from the sea. Outside of defence of the UK/BOT waters (which is linked to CEPP) and possibly CASD, everything else is a nice to have IMO.

What has to give is forward basing or deployments of anything beyond a OPV/Sloop/MCM or RFA for HADR (outside of CEPP and anything integral to it like LRG).

The other thing in this strategy is more alignment/integration with other like minded globally minded nations. Alliances like NATO will remain, but I firmly believe that if it can be made to work, a CANZUK partnership for global foreign and security matters (and contribution to global partnerships), would be a smart move.
”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

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by RichardIC »

Repulse wrote:It will take some political strength and direction, but it is more important than ever the UK has a laser focus on its strategic direction.
Did you manage to type this and keep a straight face? Love a little irony.
Repulse wrote:CANZUK partnership for global foreign and security matters (and contribution to global partnerships), would be a smart move.
With Australia the senior partner the way things are moving.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Repulse »

RichardIC wrote:With Australia the senior partner the way things are moving.
I’d settle for an equal partner.
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jensy wrote:

1) Delete the rear two landing craft davits and replace them with two 20m x 6m box hangars (roughly Type 23 size) for maintaining two Merlins, with any additional helos stored outside (as they are now).
I like this proposal.

So, I am looking at the Albion design. See photo attached (sorry too large).

- UK LCVP Mk.5 is 15.7m long and 4.3 m wide.
- Albion has "bars" to keep LCVP hull apart from the surface of the deck house. I guess it is ~1 m a side.
- In addition, around the flight deck, Albion has a ~1.5m wide "cat walk" deck in both sides.
--> adding up, it may be possible to add a ~5.3 m box without reaching out to the "cat walk" width, and ~6.8 m wide if as wide as the "cat walk".

An AW159 Wildcat is 13.5 m long (rotor folded) and 3.05 m wide. Measuring from photo, Khareef class's hangar is 5-5.5m wide, which I guess is wide enough for a Wildcat (if not Merlin). So, adding 2 hangars to carry 2 Wildcat will be "surely doable", even without going out to the "cat walk's" envelope (in place of 2 LCVP davits).

To carry a Merlin, the hangar needs to be (at least) ~6 m wide, and ~18 m long. In this case, we need to widen the hangar structure at the limit, reaching the width of the "cat walk". In other words, the hangar will "over hung" by ~1.5 m in each side from the main hull, but will not exceed the width of the cat walk.

In conclusion, I think, "2 Merlin in place of 2 LCVP" is doable.

[EDIT] Actually, if we ban all 4 LCVP davit, and hold two 36 m long 6 m wide hangars in both sides, Albion will be able to carry 4 Merlins. (but not sure about the Center of Gravity. Merlin (11t) is lighter than LCVP Mk.5 (24t), and LCVP is mounted 1 level high from the main deck, so I guess it is doable....). Image

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Jake1992 »

What do we think it’d roughly cost to go for option 2 of a full width by 20m+ hanger bring the Albion pretty much to what the original planned design was for them ?

With the expected reduction in large scale amphibious op woul going from a twin chinook / triple merlin flight deck to a single chinook S double merling flight deck be of any really lose.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Post by Lord Jim »

I fear aviation support is going to be an issue and we will have to rely on other to provide the platform for that role, Australia east of Suez and the Dutch/French when west. With Amphibious support being removed from out Carrier's area of responsibility,(being done on the quiet), and no move being made to marinise the Chinooks and the minimum work having been done to the Apaches. Also I can only see the Chinooks being ferried and operating from land rather than operating from ships in any real conflict. Yes they could lilly pad, collecting troops as the move ashore, and fly out to collect kit, but despite what has been stated in the past, the Merlin is and will remain our primary amphibious aviation support platform.

Post Reply