Future Littoral Strike Ships
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Or maybe there just going to be an afloat fwd staging base or a multitude of operation from hdar, to mcm to commando/sf operations.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Will the FLSS even survive the coming Review? The reorganisation of the Royal Marines seems to be progressing but little has been heard of what shipping is going to be needed for them to operate effectively in their new form. I guess they will use the Albions and Bays as stand ins for what is really needed, but as yet no formal requirements has been issued for new platforms and their is no funding in place we know of.
Is the reorganisation the Navy's version of the Army's "Strike" Brigades? Another case of forcing a square peg into round hole to give the appearance of a new capability for our Armed Forces without actually providing a viable force, actually equipped for the role?
Is the reorganisation the Navy's version of the Army's "Strike" Brigades? Another case of forcing a square peg into round hole to give the appearance of a new capability for our Armed Forces without actually providing a viable force, actually equipped for the role?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
OK, 3 of them...SW1 wrote:No following what your saying accArmChairCivvy wrote:There's 4 competing requirements for themSW1 wrote:the Bays, so unless there is another requirement for them, they get binned.
1 in Gulf MCM mothership role (Bahrain far away from hormuz etc)
a 1/2 on HADR duties (but we are counting in cardinal numbers), so this makes for 1
2 have been announced to be (likely) used for two fwrd-based Coy-sized forces
-------- sigma 3.5 to 4, for 3 ships
Now slot into that impossible equation (HADR could be the one "to give" in this?) the Navy Command Operating Model, what is says about doing and trying out innovation:
" The innovation agenda is undertaken through a 3-phase approach:
a. Innovation discovery.
Building a network to harvest good ideas, from technology to novel approaches, spanning Dstl, academia, other FLCs, those at sea in the Flotillas, and innovative thinkers across the maritime enterprise (e.g. QinetiQ). This includes international partners through bi and multi-lateral engagement; primarily with the US construct for rapid innovation such as the Chief of Naval Operations Rapid Innovation Cell (CRIC).
b. Innovation support.
Creating an environment where ideas are nurtured, tested and trialled; working alongside MCTA and MWC.
c. Innovation transition. Prioritising and driving innovation into the core equipment programme and linking into wider initiatives such as the Whole Force Approach."
and if we will get through the trialling phases (with Bays) quickly,
one or two might be back in the duties they were ordered for:
Landing Ship Aux (Logistics)
= the 4 th competing demand,
and that descriptive designation was only changed to fall in line with other NATO assets that were similar/ could undertake similar missions
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
My point was I wasn’t even sure when or in what context that quote was from.ArmChairCivvy wrote:OK, 3 of them...SW1 wrote:No following what your saying accArmChairCivvy wrote:There's 4 competing requirements for themSW1 wrote:the Bays, so unless there is another requirement for them, they get binned.
1 in Gulf MCM mothership role (Bahrain far away from hormuz etc)
a 1/2 on HADR duties (but we are counting in cardinal numbers), so this makes for 1
2 have been announced to be (likely) used for two fwrd-based Coy-sized forces
-------- sigma 3.5 to 4, for 3 ships
Now slot into that impossible equation (HADR could be the one "to give" in this?) the Navy Command Operating Model, what is says about doing and trying out innovation:
" The innovation agenda is undertaken through a 3-phase approach:
a. Innovation discovery.
Building a network to harvest good ideas, from technology to novel approaches, spanning Dstl, academia, other FLCs, those at sea in the Flotillas, and innovative thinkers across the maritime enterprise (e.g. QinetiQ). This includes international partners through bi and multi-lateral engagement; primarily with the US construct for rapid innovation such as the Chief of Naval Operations Rapid Innovation Cell (CRIC).
b. Innovation support.
Creating an environment where ideas are nurtured, tested and trialled; working alongside MCTA and MWC.
c. Innovation transition. Prioritising and driving innovation into the core equipment programme and linking into wider initiatives such as the Whole Force Approach."
and if we will get through the trialling phases (with Bays) quickly,
one or two might be back in the duties they were ordered for:
Landing Ship Aux (Logistics)
= the 4 th competing demand,
and that descriptive designation was only changed to fall in line with other NATO assets that were similar/ could undertake similar missions
Yes I would agree there is a number of fwd roles they’ve undertaken and much like the re rolling of the USS ponce they could adopt a similar role. Being big and flexible allows it, especially with an RFA manning cost and accommodation being better for the fwd deployed role.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Doh, I was responding to this one, but as I picked it up from within a nested quote it picked "SW1" for the author, insteadRepulse wrote: There is no requirement to launch amphibious operations from the Bays, so unless there is another requirement for them, they get binned.
... which I did not notice; sorry!
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Ok, MCM Mothership is pending how the technology pans out, but agree that counts for one now.ArmChairCivvy wrote:OK, 3 of them...
1 in Gulf MCM mothership role (Bahrain far away from hormuz etc)
a 1/2 on HADR duties (but we are counting in cardinal numbers), so this makes for 1
2 have been announced to be (likely) used for two fwrd-based Coy-sized forces
-------- sigma 3.5 to 4, for 3 ships
HADR for Caribbean BOTs does not require a Bay Class, as discussed previously it gives a level of cover, but a permanent civilian forward based entity could It better.
The 2 additional Bays for RM Cdo operations are not essential. They are supposed to be logistical ships bringing in additional troops and kit after the fight is under control.
My proposal:
- Cut 3 T23s and activate the second LPD - these then make up the core of the two LRGS
- Cut a class of MCMs and keep the three LSDs as MCM motherships but secondary logistical ships for transporting an Army brigade.
”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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
on that tech point, one of the Bays was using the US systems (so eliminating the 'middlemen, ie. Hunts, Sandowns)Repulse wrote:Ok, MCM Mothership is pending how the technology pans out
- but regardless of the 'how' in the future, let's fix the quantity for this at 1 Bay
...should, would. I think we both agree that the Bay allocation should ( ) only happen in extremis?Repulse wrote:a permanent civilian forward based entity could
- cumulative total: 1 Bay
Well, this is the current discussion. Will the RM stand up the forward-based COY+ strength LSGs, and if so (to get started) soak up the balance of available BaysRepulse wrote:The 2 additional Bays for RM Cdo operations are not essential. They are supposed to be logistical ships bringing in additional troops and kit after the fight is under control.
- if yes, then the max in the way of specialised amph. shipping sailing up North would be Albion/ Bulwark, KD and the Bay that will be this side of Suez, quickly called back... we can also call the Points back from "trade" but that would be for Strike bde(s)
- that's a full Cdo, the vehicles for it and whatever the Dutch can fit onto KD (btw: the cost of that vessel is shared between NL, BE and Germany, which all post detachments of marines/ medical onto it... I think all the sailors remain Dutch).
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
If your only talking about HDAR, though there is and has been an increase in resources assigned to the counter narcotics and security from several countries and using a bay could support both roles. Similar to the Argus role at present.Repulse wrote:HADR for Caribbean BOTs does not require a Bay Class, as discussed previously it gives a level of cover, but a permanent civilian forward based entity could It better.
I think the options that leaked to papers the last time was 7 type 23s and the wildcat fleet or the lpds.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
ArmChairCivvy, It feels now that the primary “Expeditionary” role for the RMs is to target and neutralise enemy A2/AD capabilities to allow other strike assets access to operate. Or conduct limited SF raids. This isn’t something that should be led by an auxiliary.
A LPD can easily scale from a LRG sized structure to to be the core of a ASG. Having a Bay as a Logistical / MCM support ship as part of the ASG would make sense but not normally needed for the LRG. Combine that with a CVF or Argus replacement (which carries the helicopters and another company of RMs) then you have a reasonable (but limited) force.
A LPD can easily scale from a LRG sized structure to to be the core of a ASG. Having a Bay as a Logistical / MCM support ship as part of the ASG would make sense but not normally needed for the LRG. Combine that with a CVF or Argus replacement (which carries the helicopters and another company of RMs) then you have a reasonable (but limited) force.
”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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
We will probably need to accept our contribution will be a B2 River, a small RM detachment plus any UAVs that we can afford.SW1 wrote: increase in resources assigned to the counter narcotics
Newspaper speculation, based on briefings that were internal lobbying / sounding out public opinion.SW1 wrote:I think the options that leaked to papers the last time was 7 type 23s and the wildcat fleet or the lpds.
I predict an acceleration of retiring the old and delaying the new. Personally, I see a priority need for 16 first class warships - 12 for CEPP, 4 for FRE/TAPS and Kipion; the rest is not a priority and can be covered by OPVs/Sloops. The removal of 3 Frigates and a class of MCMs, is far from ideal but at least it protects CEPP.
”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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
J. Mercer is now within the tent, rather than pissing in from the outsideSW1 wrote: 7 type 23s and the wildcat fleet or the lpds.
... so the LPDs will stay (probably their rotation, too).
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
We still need a more effective way of getting the RM from ship to target, with high speed, low detectability, long range, reasonable firepower and a capacity needed. Either that of a intermediate platform able to take the troops and equipment from the Albion or Bay to nearer the target, again requiring low detectability, speed, the needed capacity and probably some self defence capability.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Yes cap badge protectionism the issue of many a review.ArmChairCivvy wrote:J. Mercer is now within the tent, rather than pissing in from the outsideSW1 wrote: 7 type 23s and the wildcat fleet or the lpds.
... so the LPDs will stay (probably their rotation, too).
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Not sure it is the primary role, it seems more directed toward state or non state terrorism/ irregular warfare. Many countries including the US use an auxiliary for exactly the SF mission.Repulse wrote:ArmChairCivvy, It feels now that the primary “Expeditionary” role for the RMs is to target and neutralise enemy A2/AD capabilities to allow other strike assets access to operate. Or conduct limited SF raids. This isn’t something that should be led by an auxiliary.
Possibly however using the littoral group during the summer in the Caribbean and in the Arctic in the winter could be possible. Though you could use the carrier group in the North Atlantic/ArcticRepulse wrote:We will probably need to accept our contribution will be a B2 River, a small RM detachment plus any UAVs that we can afford.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Well not quite, there is £1.5 billion in the budget for new build auxiliaries. After that everything is committed for the next decade.donald_of_tokyo wrote:No money is no money, this is the point.
@LandSharkUK
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Cutting assets that are used all the time to fund assets that are rarely used. Madness!Repulse wrote:My proposal:
- Cut 3 T23s and activate the second LPD - these then make up the core of the two LRGS
- Cut a class of MCMs and keep the three LSDs as MCM motherships but secondary logistical ships for transporting an Army brigade.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
No, using the assets you have based on the priority requirements you now have makes sense. Trying to retain assets which no longer meet the priority requirements, or waste money building new ones whilst binning assets that can is Madness!shark bait wrote:Cutting assets that are used all the time to fund assets that are rarely used. Madness!
”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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Sorry, is that the fantasy fleet priority requirements or the real world priority requirements?Repulse wrote:No, using the assets you have based on the priority requirements you now have makes sense. Trying to retain assets which no longer meet the priority requirements, or waste money building new ones whilst binning assets that can is Madness!
Because the T23s and MCMs are being flogged to death. I don't remember the last time an army brigade was moved by sea, or at least by LPDs.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
All three services are going to have to pare down what roles they are to carry out and what assets are needed to do so. For the Navy at one end it could be restricted to the CSG and CASD, with only vessels no larger the OPVs forward deployed and the MCV operations in the Gulf curtailed. At best we could see most commitments retained but with many carried out by ships not really suited to the role, and/or not covered on an annual basis but rather when other commitments are not judged necessary for a time.
As for the FLSS we can expect nothing more than a minimally converted civilian vessel if we actually get anything at all. The modifications will consist of no more than a bolted on prefabricated flight deck with a temporary hanger/large tent for maintenance and davits for small craft such as RHIBs. It will not carry anything like a RM company but probably not more that a SF Squadron and one or two platoons of other troops with no vehicles or heavy support assets. It will fly the flag and have some utility but nothing like what was originally envisaged.
As for the FLSS we can expect nothing more than a minimally converted civilian vessel if we actually get anything at all. The modifications will consist of no more than a bolted on prefabricated flight deck with a temporary hanger/large tent for maintenance and davits for small craft such as RHIBs. It will not carry anything like a RM company but probably not more that a SF Squadron and one or two platoons of other troops with no vehicles or heavy support assets. It will fly the flag and have some utility but nothing like what was originally envisaged.
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
The MCMs are being flogged, but already have a death sentence. The 12 active T23s have been flogged to death partially by carrying the load from the 5 active T45s (whose engine problems will soon be resolved) and partially flying the flag on Singleton deployments that will either now be done by the B2 Rivers or not at all (under CEPP).RichardIC wrote:Sorry, is that the fantasy fleet priority requirements or the real world priority requirements?
Because the T23s and MCMs are being flogged to death. I don't remember the last time an army brigade was moved by sea, or at least by LPDs.
Shipping a brigade will not be done via the LPDs - they would be the future core LRG platform, which they are well capable of doing (and we aren’t spending money on substandard replacements).
”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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
I believe the Sandowns will be sold as they are too small to have a working deck for the type of kit coming in, but the Hunts have just been re-engined - and can smooth the transition, so they will likely be around for "a while".Repulse wrote:The MCMs are being flogged, but already have a death sentence.
- RiverB1s have a good sized deck, a capable crane... and can self-deploy
= another "bridge" once the fish have been sorted?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
ArmChairCivvy, Agree, my view is that the Hunts should be the class that remains, and was surprised when the RN scrapped a couple of them a few years ago.
Combined with the Rivers and 3 Bays (maybe 4 if we buy back the RAN one they are taking about replacing) this would be reasonable replacement for the 7 Sandowns in my view.
I would say though that a MHC/MHPC class would be required to replace the Hunt and Echo class ultimately around late 2020s to carry the RN into the 2040s when technology may mean we can use any platform.
Combined with the Rivers and 3 Bays (maybe 4 if we buy back the RAN one they are taking about replacing) this would be reasonable replacement for the 7 Sandowns in my view.
I would say though that a MHC/MHPC class would be required to replace the Hunt and Echo class ultimately around late 2020s to carry the RN into the 2040s when technology may mean we can use any 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
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
Maybe we should look to another three or four B3 Rivers, built at the outset to have a MCV role, or at least optimised to act as an auxiliary platform, as well as its patrol function to replace the B1s.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5628
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
For me keep it cheap and quick and buy 2 150 x 22 meter Makassar class LPD's from Korea for 100 million pounds fitted with a full width T hangar capable of holding 2 Merlin and 2 Wildcat opereting off 2 spots. The 150 meter Makassar should be able hold 500 people including 60 crew 300 troops and 140 others it could also operate a good number of boats and other kit from its well dock and 2 davits making it a good all round ship for the task . Armament could be 3 x 40mm
-
- Member
- Posts: 527
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Future Littoral Strike Ships
or, not build more Rivers for a role their not suited too, and instead get four 90m Venari on the blocks...?Lord Jim wrote:Maybe we should look to another three or four B3 Rivers, built at the outset to have a MCV role, or at least optimised to act as an auxiliary platform, as well as its patrol function to replace the B1s.