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.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 Mar 2019, 10:45

Tempest414 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I was talking about 4.8-10+B GBP black hole in equipment budget. So for me, reduction in current equipment plan is DEFAULT,
What ever the size of the black hole it is across the 10 year plan and it is not black and white
And, whatever the color, 5-10% short of money is fact. So, "adopting to the budget" is by default. We may call it "cut", but for Treasury, of course not a cut. Just they are providing the money they promised to provide = default. It is only MOD is spending too much.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 29 Mar 2019, 11:00

I don't see it that way sorry

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Mar 2019, 09:29

Discussion on Malesia thread (naval show) was branching this way, so a copy inserted here, the quote part if from USNI News:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:probably based on the earlier USN experiment there with a full-scale amhib

Lord Jim wrote:
a mobile base off the coast of West Africa


- by 2015, the concept had been refined further (we know this Dunford from a different role as of today):
"Shortly after becoming commandant late last year, Gen. Joseph Dunford directed his staff to study putting forward deployed Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) forces — currently land based — on platforms other than the traditional amphibious warships that comprise the Navy and the Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Group and Marine Expeditionary Units (ARG/MEU).

In comments to USNI News on Feb. 12, Dunford singled out Military Sealift Command’s Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) variants of the Mobile Platform (MLP) as one option to expand the reach of the SPMAGTF-CR beyond their ground bases Moron, Spain, and Sigonella, Italy.

“They have flight deck capability, command and control capability and about 240 berthing spaces for Marines. This would be a great opportunity for us to be able to use the V-22 and small numbers of Marines,” he said.
“But at the low end of the spectrum… by no means are they a warship. They are not a replacement for an amphibious ship but they [can] augment our capabilities to meet our requirements on a day-to-day basis.”

- reach in crisis is not just the distance that can be covered, but the time it takes; obviously, if you are (at least a spearhead force is) closer to the scene that would help
- a much bigger ship for 240 Marines (they will be spending long periods there, so no 'in overload thinking'
- on these pages there was a rush to design them as amphib replacements (of which, let's face it, we don't have enough... not enough money, either. Hence: horses for courses?)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 31 Mar 2019, 10:41

And how about using the other Albion in that role? OFC, the rotary component will not be as good, but with some sort of hanger added, for say 2 Wildcats, maybe could do?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 31 Mar 2019, 10:48

abc123 wrote:And how about using the other Albion in that role? OFC, the rotary component will not be as good, but with some sort of hanger added, for say 2 Wildcats, maybe could do?


Erm, cos it has a basic crew requirement of more than 300. The RN is short of people. That’s why FLSS will probably be contractor operated (if it ever happens).

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 10:52

abc123 wrote:And how about using the other Albion in that role? OFC, the rotary component will not be as good, but with some sort of hanger added, for say 2 Wildcats, maybe could do?
Why not just add a RUBB hanger like on the Bay's? You would lose the second landing spot but that's not the end of the world for certain Ops. It might still be possible to operate two Wildcats simultaneously with the remaining flight deck.

The RUBB hanger would hold 2 Merlins or 3 Wildcats if required and transform the prospects of Bulwark. It would certainly make the best use of what we have.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 10:57

RichardIC wrote:
abc123 wrote:And how about using the other Albion in that role? OFC, the rotary component will not be as good, but with some sort of hanger added, for say 2 Wildcats, maybe could do?


Erm, cos it has a basic crew requirement of more than 300. The RN is short of people. That’s why FLSS will probably be contractor operated (if it ever happens).
Why would Bulwark need a full complement if performing an FLSS type role?

Remove a lot of the C&C personnel and only carry 1 LCVP, a mexefloate and a modest EMF and the crew allocation required would be a lot less than 300.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 31 Mar 2019, 11:24

It was just an idea for discussion how to best use what the RN currently has, not a definite proposal...

And yes, I agree that RUBB hanger on Bays should be IMHO, great thing.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1478
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Caribbean » 31 Mar 2019, 11:37

I think that ACC's quote, above, highlights the expected capabilities of the FLSS nicely. I think we all go a little carried away when it was mentioned that it could form part of an amphibious assault. As I see it, there is a subtle difference (ok, not so subtle) between the function of an amphibious assault ship and the FLSS - the former is intended to land troops and then sustain them ashore (and recover them again if necessary) - the latter is intended to land (and recover) troops, but to sustain them afloat (potentially over long periods). Will it have utility in an amphibious assault? Of course it will, by doing exactly what it's designed for - land small groups of SF and RM for reconnaissance and to assault specific high-value objectives, before and during an amphibious landing. It could also function as an auxiliary helicopter carrier (and operate closer to shore than the carriers under the protection of T45s and T23/26s), providing extra hangar/ refuelling and even maintenance facilities for the Albion/ Bays. It should also be able to offload vehicles and stores via it's stern ramp, either to mexeflotes or to a harbour quayside.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 31 Mar 2019, 12:04

Someone mentioned before some novel with seabasing as the plot, what's the name?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 31 Mar 2019, 12:09

Poiuytrewq wrote:Why would Bulwark need a full complement if performing an FLSS type role?

Remove a lot of the C&C personnel and only carry 1 LCVP, a mexefloate and a modest EMF and the crew allocation required would be a lot less than 300.


Keep going. When you can get the core crew down to 35 sponsored reserves you may have a valid point. You’ll also have an LPD that can’t move under its own power or put breakfast on the table.

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

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Mar 2019, 16:02

Caribbean wrote:providing extra hangar/ refuelling and even maintenance facilities for the Albion/ Bays.
not to be sniffed at, as value provided outside its/ their core mission

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 16:55

RichardIC wrote:Keep going. When you can get the core crew down to 35 sponsored reserves you may have a valid point. You’ll also have an LPD that can’t move under its own power or put breakfast on the table.
Too simplistic. What do you expect an FLSS could achieve with 35 sponsored reserves? The answer is very little apart from move from A to B and keep the lights on and the props turning.

I believe there are many roles Bulwark could perform rather than slowly rusting away in extended readiness. Take APT(S) as an example, Bulwark could perform this task admirably with a crew comparable with a T31 and we wouldn't have to pay £250m for the privilege. If it was a choice between Bulwark or Leander for a South Atlantic patrol I know which vessel I would rather be on.

Another option could be to base Bulwark east of Suez. One full complement and one vastly reduced complement could alternate between Albion based in the UK and Bulwark based EoS depending on which was needed in the full LPD role at the time. When joined with a FLSS and a Wave this could form the basis of each independent LSG either side of Suez. This FLSS/Albion/Wave combination would make for a credible Littoral Strike Group especially if properly escorted.

To form the full LitM group each LSG could simply be reinforced with HMS PWLS, 1 or 2 Bay's, 1 FSS and the number of escorts required. It would be a pretty efficient, highly versatile and cost effective way to organise the Amphibs.

First and foremost we need to make the most of what we have and a more innovative approach to the current manning structures would be a very good place to start.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Mar 2019, 23:27

The name Littoral Strike Group is even worse than that of the Littoral Strike Ship. It gives the impression of some sort of elite mini amphibious assault force, sailing around the Far East conduction SF missions against all Her Majesties enemies.

In reality we will have a converted merchant vessels with limited aviation facilities and carrying a couple of dozen SF personnel occasionally supplemented by a similar number of Royal Marines. It may be accompanied by a RFA platform but rarely on a permanently basis as the FLSS will usually be use as a mobile base, anchored in a allied port within range of the bad guys. For this reason I doubt it will ever have a top tier RN escort attached, possibly T-31e for high risk deployments but mainly rely on allies navies for protection.

As pointed out the two FLSS will probably not even be painted grew but retain their civilian colours like the points and crewed by contractors instead of Rn or RFA personnel. In a few word these Littoral Strike Groups will be complied as cheaply as possible to meet the minimum requirement for their primary role. They will have other uses and like any ship will be able to offer aid and conduct HADR operations but will not be tailored in any way to such missions. These formations are nothing to get excited about, though they have succeeded deflected attention in the defence press away from other more important issues facing the MoD.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 09:36

Poiuytrewq wrote:Too simplistic. What do you expect an FLSS could achieve with 35 sponsored reserves? The answer is very little apart from move from A to B and keep the lights on and the props turning.

I believe there are many roles Bulwark could perform rather than slowly rusting away in extended readiness. Take APT(S) as an example, Bulwark could perform this task admirably with a crew comparable with a T31 and we wouldn't have to pay £250m for the privilege. If it was a choice between Bulwark or Leander for a South Atlantic patrol I know which vessel I would rather be on.

Another option could be to base Bulwark east of Suez. One full complement and one vastly reduced complement could alternate between Albion based in the UK and Bulwark based EoS depending on which was needed in the full LPD role at the time. When joined with a FLSS and a Wave this could form the basis of each independent LSG either side of Suez. This FLSS/Albion/Wave combination would make for a credible Littoral Strike Group especially if properly escorted.

To form the full LitM group each LSG could simply be reinforced with HMS PWLS, 1 or 2 Bay's, 1 FSS and the number of escorts required. It would be a pretty efficient, highly versatile and cost effective way to organise the Amphibs.

First and foremost we need to make the most of what we have and a more innovative approach to the current manning structures would be a very good place to start


There is so much fantasy fleet nonsense here it’s difficult to know where to start. But you seem to have turned a converted vehicle ferry into the centrepiece of the entire deployable RN and RFA.

You posted a day early.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1185
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Jake1992 » 01 Apr 2019, 09:57

I must admit Iv never really understood this whole LSG concept, I always thought the LSS where meant to be SF platforms like MV Ocean raider with a slightly larger accommodation to allow “raiding” ops by the RM.

I can understand them being used to join up with a wider amphibious role to play a similar role to the bays but not as a centre piece to any group

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Apr 2019, 10:55

RichardIC wrote:
There is so much fantasy fleet nonsense here it’s difficult to know where to start. But you seem to have turned a converted vehicle ferry into the centrepiece of the entire deployable RN and RFA.

You posted a day early.
Your view is clear.

It appears in your view everything that didn't happen yesterday is fantasy, fine. That's crystal clear

Let's stick with the facts.

The Defence Secretary has announced that the current direction of planning is to form two Littoral Strike Groups either side of Suez which will include procuring two Littoral Strike Ships. FACT.

Elements of these Littoral Strike Groups may or may not form part of the UK's much larger Littoral Manoeuvre Group. FACT

Bulwark is in extended readiness and a better use could be found for this vessel. FACT

Wave Knight is operational and Wave Ruler is in extended readiness. FACT

Discussing how these vessels can be organised in a plausible way to meet the desired outcome is entirely reasonable.
Lord Jim wrote:The name Littoral Strike Group is even worse than that of the Littoral Strike Ship. It gives the impression of some sort of elite mini amphibious assault force, sailing around the Far East conduction SF missions against all Her Majesties enemies.
I am not keen on the names either but until RN or the MOD change them they are what they are.
Lord Jim wrote:In reality we will have a converted merchant vessels with limited aviation facilities and carrying a couple of dozen SF personnel occasionally supplemented by a similar number of Royal Marines.
Do we really know enough about the concept to say that for sure yet? I think it's too early to say for sure exactly where this concept will end up. Just like most programmes, it is highly likely to evolve although given the timescales there appears little time for evolution.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 13:18

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Defence Secretary has announced that the current direction of planning is to form two Littoral Strike Groups either side of Suez which will include procuring two Littoral Strike Ships. FACT.

Elements of these Littoral Strike Groups may or may not form part of the UK's much larger Littoral Manoeuvre Group. FACT

Bulwark is in extended readiness and a better use could be found for this vessel. FACT

Wave Knight is operational and Wave Ruler is in extended readiness. FACT

Discussing how these vessels can be organised in a plausible way to meet the desired outcome is entirely reasonable.


It's not the factuality, its the glib use words like "simply" to describe something that's really not simple. It's like it's a desktop exercise.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 01 Apr 2019, 13:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:Too simplistic. What do you expect an FLSS could achieve with 35 sponsored reserves? The answer is very little apart from move from A to B and keep the lights on and the props turning.

I think that's exactly what it's suppose to do.

What else does the LSS need to do beside transport a couple of helicopters and boats closer to an area of interest?
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby abc123 » 01 Apr 2019, 13:43

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Too simplistic. What do you expect an FLSS could achieve with 35 sponsored reserves? The answer is very little apart from move from A to B and keep the lights on and the props turning.

I think that's exactly what it's suppose to do.

What else does the LSS need to do beside transport a couple of helicopters and boats closer to an area of interest?


Cater for enbarked military force? Maintain helicopters and landing crafts/boats? Provide emergency medical treatment ( because SF operations oftenly have casualties ) + their normal medical needs?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby shark bait » 01 Apr 2019, 14:09

Let's not pretend that is anything other than simple routine work. All it need to do if float and move.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Apr 2019, 14:40

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Too simplistic. What do you expect an FLSS could achieve with 35 sponsored reserves? The answer is very little apart from move from A to B and keep the lights on and the props turning.

I think that's exactly what it's suppose to do.

What else does the LSS need to do beside transport a couple of helicopters and boats closer to an area of interest?
Prehaps nothing but why couldn't Bulwark do the same thing with a comparable crew allocation? The important thing is to ensure an even comparison between platforms.

How many crew would it take on Bulwark to achieve the same outcome if the same levels of damage control were being applied? Probably not many more than 35.

My main point is, what could vessels such as Wave Ruler and Bulwark offer with a change in roles and/or a reduction in crew allocations? Could Bulwark adequately perform APT(N) and APT(S) with a crew of around 100-120. I think it's plausible. So why plan to use a £250m T31 for those deployments? I don't see the logic in tying up frigates In the Caribbean and South Atlantic on a routine basis.

It's important to ascertain how much more can be squeezed out of the existing fleet before we look to spend hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds on new vessels but most important is formulating a coherent long term strategy. The recent emphasis on an increased presence east of Suez is relatively new. Clearly a fairly major change of strategy is under way and may result is some vessels having to change or widen their roles. The recent Mounts Bay trails is a good example of how adaptable RN and RFA vessels might need to be in the future.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby RichardIC » 01 Apr 2019, 16:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:Prehaps nothing but why couldn't Bulwark do the same thing with a comparable crew allocation? The important thing is to ensure an even comparison between platforms.

How many crew would it take on Bulwark to achieve the same outcome if the same levels of damage control were being applied? Probably not many more than 35.


Am I reading this right? Are you now advocating using Bulwark in this Strikething role with a reduced crew that neglects naval damage control standards?

Poiuytrewq wrote:My main point is, what could vessels such as Wave Ruler and Bulwark offer with a change in roles and/or a reduction in crew allocations? Could Bulwark adequately perform APT(N) and APT(S) with a crew of around 100-120. I think it's plausible. So why plan to use a £250m T31 for those deployments? I don't see the logic in tying up frigates In the Caribbean and South Atlantic on a routine basis


What makes you think it's plausible? You've mentioned reducing the number of landing craft carried, but aren't the RM landing craft crew supernumaries rather than core crew?
Poiuytrewq wrote:The recent emphasis on an increased presence east of Suez is relatively new.


Yup, started with the appointment of the current SoS and it will finish when he clears his desk. Which is when the FLSS project will be filed in the bin.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Apr 2019, 16:20

I have to agree, there are many other more relevant areas money is needed within the MoD instead of creating a new capability requirements and commitment for the Military. We are stretched too far already just meeting existing commitments and now we are to expand these without additional funding, just cocking the books instead with this Transformation Fund. Great for PR but of little help.

We desperately need a proper SDR driven by role and commitments more than ever.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships

Postby Tempest414 » 01 Apr 2019, 16:51

RichardIC wrote:Am I reading this right? Are you now advocating using Bulwark in this Strikething role with a reduced crew that neglects naval damage control standards?


You have be careful when making statements like this just because the Albion class have a crew of 325 for its primary task does not mean it will need that many for other tasks. Now I am not saying it can be crewed with less or it should however I do know these new FLSS ship will need more than 36 crew to do anything more than move from port to port down to the fact that a Ponit class needs 22 just to shift kit from place to place and they have no boat decks or flight decks fuel and weapons stores , galliey for 200 plus . I think we are looking at a crew of 80 like the Bays


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Repulse and 21 guests