BAE Systems recently presented some of their latest thinking on the future of Littoral Strike. Here we look at these concepts in the context of UK requirements.
This is not specifically targeted at the RN’s MRSS project or the requirements of any particular nation, rather this is preparatory work to start conversations with customers, end-users and potential industry partners. The UK, the Netherlands and Norway in particular all have an interest in Littoral Strike developments but there are other possible buyers for aspects or combinations of these technologies.
The solutions are part of a ‘system-of-systems’ approach. MRSS and other contemporary amphibious warship projects will not just about building a ship but will include multiple elements including ship-shore connectors, autonomous off-board platforms, modular capabilities and supporting command, data/communications networks. The concepts shown are not complete designs but can be customised or substantially revised to meet the needs and budget of the customer.
Littoral Operations Ship
At first glance, the LOS has the appearance of a typical LPD but incorporates much greater flexibility and is able to change roles more quickly than legacy amphibious platforms. This is primarily achieved through spaces that can easily be reconfigured to accept different equipment. This could include command facilities, medical space or additional storage for PODS/containerised payloads.
The large well deck is designed to accept future ship-to-shore connectors which are likely to be inherently larger as they operate at much greater distances from the coast than older landing craft. There are also generous aviation spaces to accommodate conventional rotary wing aircraft as well as a variety of RWUAS. (Whether MRSS will have a more substantial aviation capability than the legacy LPDs has yet to be defined.)
Propulsion based on diesel generators driving twin azipods is an unusual feature of the LOS concept. The Albion class LPDs were the first RN vessels to have fully integrated diesel-electric propulsion but it was never entirely satisfactory, being relatively maintenance and manpower-intensive. Subsequently, electric ship technology has much improved, and LOS would have excess power generation capacity, a feature of most modern surface combatants. This will be ready to support Laser DEW, RF DEW and future weapon or sensor needs.
Starting with Type 45 destroyers, BAES has iteratively developed the System Information Exploitation (SIE), a tool that continually gathers and processes equipment data from warships. This information can be accessed on board or ashore to diagnose or predict issues and ultimately reduce the maintenance workload. The latest version of SIE would be incorporated in LOS.
BAES appreciates there are many specialist companies that have expertise and products that would be applicable for incorporation in LOS. In particular developments in sub-payload handling such as Launch and Recovery Systems (LARS) or Mission Bay Handling Systems (MBHS) will be needed to fully realise the modular potential of the platform.
LOC is a scaleable concept that can be adapted to customer needs. In the UK context, to make use of existing infrastructure, MRSS will probably need to be an absolute maximum of about 190m in length displacing up to 28,000-tonnes.
-
The vehicle deck of the LOS shows a mix of payloads including vehicles, PODS and a Heren XLUAV. Note the lift for transporting loads to and from the hangar and spaces above. -
The well dock has space for about 4 LSC and leads onto the vehicle deck in a similar arrangement to the legacy LPDs. -
LSC approaches the LOC well dock -
USV-01 is a completely uncrewed platform for attack and ISR missions. A prototype has already been built in Portsmouth. This type of craft could be routinely be carried by warships and be a part of the Littoral Strike toolkit.
Littoral Strike Craft
The centrepiece of BAES’ latest amphibious warfare concepts is their Littoral Strike Craft (LSC). This has a few similarities to the Steller Systems Offshore Insertion Craft concept developed for the DASA Novel Amphibious Craft competition but is quite different. (BAES did not participate in that project). The Steller Systems OIC was designed with a conventional bow and would reverse onto the beach and use a stern ramp. (Sadly, Steller Systems Ltd went into administration in October 2024 due to unpaid debts.)
The LSC is an LCVP replacement but is not seen as a ‘landing craft’ but a multirole vessel. With a length of up to 20m and between 30-50 tonnes displacement it can transport troops and/or vehicles and act as a weapons or ISR platform. It is designed from the outset to have the option to be used without a crew for some missions but more likely to be lean-crewed, frequently operating in pairs for mutual support.
To minimise weight and radar signature, the hull would either be aluminium, all composite or a mix of the two. Depending on customer requirements for cost and protection, kevlar armour could be added in places.
With the Littoral Strike concept demanding the launch platform is kept well out of range of coastal defences, the new generation of ship-shore connectors must have far better range, speed and seakeeping performance than legacy landing craft. LSC has diesel engines and waterjets that would provide for a high cruising speed of around 20 knots and 30 knots sprint speed. Ranges of around 300km could be achieved, depending on payload and operating profile.
In order that troops arrive on the beach in good shape for the battle, the sea-keeping requirement is especially important. There is an inherent tension between the need for a bow ramp to facilitate easy exit onto the beach in shallow water and an efficient bow form that can cope with rough seas without slamming. There are some similarities with the requirements for civilian crew transfer vessels (CTV) used in the North Sea. BAES has developed a ‘tri-bow’ hull form that provides good lateral stability. This is complemented with a clamshell door and bow ramp design which allows for higher speeds while retaining shallow water operating capability. BAES has already successfully trialled this novel hull form with models and in water tank testing.
The craft also has a rear door and ramp to make it a Ro-Ro platform. This allows vehicles to drive on at the stern and off at the bow in a similar arrangement to the legacy LCUs that facilitates easy on and offloading in the confines of the well dock.
In action, the LSC could be used as an offensive platform using weapons mounted on board or as a communications node providing firing solutions to other larger weapon platforms. They could also be used in decoy and deception operations. Although only at a concept stage, the LSC could also mount a small AESA radar to extend the horizon of the networked assets of the Littoral Strike Group . The LSC have a soft patch in front of the wheelhouse which can be opened to launch UAVs as well as remote weapons stations on the port and starboard bows. The soft patch can also allow palletised loads to be lowered onto the vehicle deck.
-
Troops landing over the bow ramp. -
The LSC has a hull form designed for high speed and good sea keeping. -
The large stern ramp with UAV launch rack above. -
Mock up showing troops on anti-shock seating either side with small vehicle deck in the centre.
Littoral strike operations in highly contested environments will be increasingly challenging and demand new Tactics, Training and Procedures. The force will also need greater firepower, speed and agility, together with different platforms to support this new operating model. There are some in the UK that are already giving up on amphibious warfare, as being too difficult and expensive when in fact, operating in this environment is likely to be unavoidable and central to future conflicts, large or small.
In the UK, BAES and BMT in particular have started to do the groundwork on developing the next generation of assault ships and new types of ship-shore connectors and effectors to enable Commando Force success. Having prematurely dispensed with the LPDs, the RN’s littoral strike capability is now very thin. In order to properly rebuild this key capability, the MRSS project must navigate the pressures of the coming defence review and be funded to move quickly from concepts to reality.
Looks like a good profit centre.
These MRSS vessels face a very significant challenge. If they are to be used for disaster relief and such like you can get away with semi commercial systems and minor armament. If you are going to use them in peer conflict you cannot.
The Project seems to face a classic stand off between capability and budget. It will interesting to see how MRSS travels.
What government in their right mind compromises the security of its people by getting rid of a layer of defence before the replacement is even little more than a concept. They are not living in the real world.
Sounds a long way from a defined and costed concept
These are preliminary squiggles on a sheet of paper.
As you say there is a huge way to go to develop something build able.
The benefits of being able to operate fixed wing uas would seem to be so obvious that one wonders why any configuration other than a flat top would be considered?
Would require any money for said UAS
BAE are developing a fixed wing UAS called Strix which is VTOL. A helicopter flight deck is all it needs.
Any links ?
Long way.
One wonders if the LSC can be used as a replacement for the archer class, with the Stern ramp and the soft patch being used for PODS?
No? Archers are tiny boats we don’t need to consolidate that design, just build another patrol boat.
Is this really “Future littoral strike enablers being developed for the Royal Navy” or is it just “Pretty CGI made by marketing department”?
So much new kit here it makes me wonder where all the money will come from. I’ll believe it when I see it, If I live that long.
UK heading for another recession it seems.
Hopefully not mistaken recession for war
Photocopiet
Sorry ?
Lots of people skipping the first couple of paragraphs of the article – these are BAE’s latest thinking on what littoral strike requires.
Not what the RN is asking for – it’s still thinking about that.
First time I’ve seen that… “ the Littoral Strike concept demanding the launch platform is kept well out of range of coastal defences”
But is obvious good sense given the cheapness and availability of land-based anti-ship missiles and drones. Of course, it also makes NGFS out of the question, but some dinosaurs still think this is required.
The whole idea of literal strike revolves around being close to shore, or am I missing something ?
No, but the concept is as dangerous today as charging machine guns from a trench in WW1
The concept is still the same, moving men and equipment ashore otherwise you don’t need the Royal Marines.
So you might as well use missiles, bombs, or 16inch guns.
The Royal Marines are now a raiding force, they’re not doing D Day re-enactments.
I see the potential danger but I also understand the concept of mobility and insertion capability that literal Strike offers especially in non contested areas. Not every coastline is protected like the WW1 frontlines.
Read the article, it says “out if range of coastal defences”, any ship (aka a £500m to £1bn of asset that’s takes 5 years to replace) is in serious danger of getting sunk by a missile costing a fraction of that.
The ships stay out of range, the landing craft come to shore. And ideally in an unopposed landing because the enemy doesn’t know you’re coming – another reason to keep the ships far offshore.
Look up the word “Littoral”, it literally means close to shore.
Littoral is the theatre, not the ship location FFS…
Are you actually like this in real life ?
Mate, every site has a few of these, they like to act all tough and feel free to hurl abuse at others whilst sitting all safe in their lonely caves. I should just ignore him as you can never argue with a fool.
yes probably.
Vulcano rounds have 100km range.
What’s that in English money ?
Which means ships may need to be over 100km offshore to avoid such rounds being fired at them.
You seriously think coastal batteries will be a thing again?
Or that land based artillery can find and attack warships?
Extended range shells are an opportunity for amphibious operations, not a threat.
You seriously think they aren’t a threat? RM took on ships with a Carl Gustav, Ukrainians with laser guided ATGM, necessity is the mother of invention and laser guided 155mm rounds coupled with UAS for Surveillance and Target Acquisition are entirely adequate and capable ship killers in the right tactical circumstances.; which is why the USMC is considering everything from BAE’s 155mm HVM, to NEMESIS (NSM), to sticking a multi-mode seeker on the Precision Strike Missile (PRsM) …….
“ to sticking a multi-mode seeker on the Precision Strike Missile (PRsM) …….”
What seeker ? The US Army required a high altitude tethered EW calling ballon Plus a high altitude drone to hit a moving “target”
Like the balloons that your country has been sending over the West?
Well, you probably could develop a modern coastal artillery system to fire guided shells. Here’s my approximation of the kit needed:
And suddenly you have 6 lorries, minimum, sitting around all day waiting for stuff to turn up. Not to mention 4 precious artillery vehicles just hiding at the top of a cliff staring out to sea. All of which could be destroyed by a single Wildcat hunting with Martlet ashore, operating from the amphibious vessel waiting out of range. And it is probably operated by the Army, who are screaming for these resources to be returned to the front lines, where they have a tangible effect.
You could do most of that with a drone and Archer/AS90 setup.
As the gun is on terra firma and target acquisition is a lot less hard than naval gunnery where the ships moves…..
Guided rounds are a game changer *if* they are cheap enough for the massive stockpiles needed.
The reload ability is the primary advantage as 5” or 4.5” a rounds are RASable.
So yes, I can see why T26 had a big gun on it when there was a class of 13 with hopes of 16.
Accurately raining fear down in the shore is, I’m afraid, part and parcel of support. I’m not too sure I buy the ‘ship is too vulnerable’ argument – that depends on tech edge with soft kills/CIWS and simply sending a suppressing present back in the opposite direction – with missiles but guided rounds are a larger problem IRL as they are harder to interdict and they can be made to keep coming. Which is why 40mm/57mm/Phalanx has a useful place in the range of defensive effectors.
“ amphibious vessel waiting out of range”
Excuse me? You’re the one making the case for ships to be coming close to shore, now you’re pushing them out of range now it’s finally dawned on you that there is a threat????
Your suggestion is a strawman.
1 The UAVs operate from the nearest military airfield, no trucks required.
2 The command and control likewise, is done from the airfield, no trucks required. Assuming there is no direct link between drone and artillery.
3 Self-propelled artillery, deployed as needed, where needed. Using shoot and scoot tactics only 1 would be required.
4 An ammunition truck would only be required for a sustained bombardment, and so thats unnecessary. Given the SPA is being passed the coordinates from a spotter drone, if it can’t hit the ship in the first 6 rounds, then it’s never going to hit it.
Stop living in the 1950s.
We appear to be at cross purposes.
What I mean is that it isn’t really feasible to devote resources towards defending against amphibious raids done properly- with fire support from guided rounds and using fast insertion over long distances using stealthy craft or helicopters.
That would need artillery batteries and drones along every stretch of coastline, outweighing the cost of maintaining a single threat over the horizon.
Similarly, the means of guidance for shells isn’t as easy as you make out. Laser guidance requires a drone within c.10km, well within CAMM range for a well equipped landing ship.
GPS guidance is unreliable given the time of flight for guided shells and the maneuverability of modern warships. Same goes for inertial guidance, with the added problem of inaccuracy.
Passive sensors might be the only way, but those haven’t been fully demonstrated against naval targets.
Military airfields, again, aren’t as common as you imply. It is reasonable to assume that they would either be the target of the raids, in which case the defender’s job is made easier, or a NSM would be allocated towards destroying equipment there and knocking it out.
Or there is a chance of manned fighters being based there and the whole discussion is moot.
The initiative lies with the attacker, who only has to slip around or over defences. Yes, land based artillery is a reasonable deterrent but it is far outweighed by anti ship missiles. It has never been my opinion that landing ships could operate close inshore without enormous fire superiority. That’s partly why I was in favour of the Steller Fearless MRSS concept, albeit without some of the more excessive aspects of it’s armament.
Don’t waste your time on this one, he has a lot of anger and zero respect for anyone else’s opinions on here.
I have no respect for ideas parroted by people who haven’t engaged a single brain cell to think through the logical consequences or in feasibility of what they are spouting. No anger here, but if you’ve lead a sheltered life in a safe-space then I suppose you might get frightened by someone disagreeing with you. There, there, diddums, didn’t mean to frighten you.
“Stop living in the 1950’s”, that’s a laugh, he’s only 16, no seriously he is.
He has a Trident D5 up his backside, that’s why the anger sickness.
Nobody said coastal batteries, that’s a strawman argument. I take it you’ve not heard of self-propelled howitzers? The standard for which is 155mm (6 inches).
See my reply to Jed for my approximation of what a modern day mobile shore battery would look like.
The principle is still the same, land based indirect fire at warships. The Swedes retained static coastal guns until 2000, it isn’t an entirely anachronistic concept.
I was reading about the Oskarsborg Fort a while back that was still used to protect the city of Oslo with its 11 inch guns until relatively recent times, I’ll take a look at the Swedish history in a bit. I love these little snippets of interesting comments you get on here. Oh and Merry Christmas to you.
And to you, Jim, thanks.
Those Swedish guns look interesting.
I only had a glimpse on Wikipedia to check when people stopped using shore based artillery, but it just seems to be a tank or SPH turret sunk into a concrete bunker.
Taiwan still has 240-millimeter M1 howitzers for coastal defense
Thanks for that too, I was walking around Portland a few months back, exploring some old gun batteries, I find them fascinating.
Finland 130mm batteries.
Good catch
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/finland-looks-for-new-mobile-coastal-artillery-systems/
The 130mm turrets and fortifications have some advantages over the mobile batteries so some might remain in use as FDF funding is going up so they could operate both as in the past.
Operational readiness and direct fire capability are the obvious differences but 130 TK are also designed for a 155mm barrel swap if required.
Traditional fixed position overwatch could expand with modern ammunition in to an air defense role against massed drones and cruise missiles and long range precision strike.
Finnish police, border guard and FDF SOF boarded and seized a tanker suspected of multiple acts of undersea sabotage in the Gulf of Finland.
It was and remains within range of at least 4 coastal batteries.
So how do you support RM when they need some fast solid support that cannot be supplied by the limited numbers of NSM?
Bunkers / machine gun nests need to taken out and you either fire a shell or you waste lives taking them. You might be able to improvise with an ATW or get lucky with mortar rounds but not much beats 4.5 or 5” of incoming on repeat for keeping people’s heads down. And it is the on repeat function that is so important for shaping the battlefield to give localised advantage or providing cover to exfiltrate.
CAS is how it’s done today, though that’s moving more towards being provided by drones than by manned aircraft.
Like every landing craft. Personnel become standing ducks. May I suggest reversing the landing door to what’s used on a car ferry, where the door acts like a shield. Letting the personnel depart from the sides. Perhaps have 2 swing out machine guns to the sides?
If the royal is using unmanned ships of any size I hope they have a self destruction so they can’t fall into unmanned friendly girces
I’m maybe a little thick but what is a “girces” ?
Old wine in a new bottle
Ikr, How are the Albions not capable of this job yet they get called outdated.
Vintage “Old wine” !
Royal Marines have been doing littoral strikes for 360 years since 1664, long before BAE started looking for punters.
As for the Albions, ask the government what is outdated, the ships or the concept.
Some bottle…some wine!
.
I agree on both counts. And there is nothing finer than a decent vintage wine. !
Cheers, bottoms up!
The crew requirements are outdated – crew of over 300 each, which is more all 4 Bays combined.
Bays have too few crew but it’s somewhere in the middle yes.
Because they are actual warships, displacing 20,000 tonnes.
Bays are big too, but yes. Albions had crew to operate we’ll dock and flight deck simultaneously as well as command and control facilities
With the crew requirements 2 (T26) to 3 (T31) times that of a modern frigate.
Comparing apples with bananas
Yes. How much is the basic crew to operate and navigate the ship without a full load of stores and marines.
Those stores and marines require higher crew numbers for their needs. Theres also the command and control element with its staff officers and higher ranks.
None of this will ever happen.
Most peer Navy’s have proper LPDs and LPHs. Like we had. Built and paid for.
Brazil is catching up rather fast too thanks to our cuts.
You mean like the PLA navy
8 ships Type 075 LHD
We’re never gonna compete with the PLA
Of course not, they build a Royal Navy every 2 or 3 years.
They build ships in numbers that might be the equivalent to the Royal Navy but are they actually any good ? I hope we never find out personally.
Is a fallacy argument, Jim, no matter how good a ship is, it cannot be in two places at the same time.
Quantity has a quality of its own in war and there is never too much.
building 1 ship Type 076 LHD
I agree 100% mate…..
Caldicott Wayne ? Is that from the CCP United front Work Department sock puppet generator, must be on the 60th plus by now
So how many comrades from your propaganda department are using the name Duker?
Have you not looked in the mirror today?
You so seem to know much about “CCP United front Work Department“, why don’t you tell us more?
What is this please ?
My dear fellow, someone always seems to be mentioning this place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_Work_Department
.
Its your boss as your multiple sock puppets are organised to covertly utilise ‘patriotic’ Chinese volunteers in the west.
Hence your promotion of PLAN vessels on the RN support website
Why you think they should not be. China has been the biggest shipbuilder in the world in last years, is the builder of the world in many other technologies. Their universities and society are not being destroyed by Marxist engineered self hate.
I am not saying they are tops only a conflict will show , but i am sure they will be mostly overall ok.
I’m sure your thoughts are mostly OK.
Their entire society is based on the Marxism that you say is so destructive…
For Gods sake….do you think Communism can give the results that China show? Do you think a Xiaomi smartphone is decided in some Communist bureau, and an apparatchik decides how many bolts and nuts will be produced in a year?
China is a normal dictatorship with Communist symbology. You can be a millionaire in China controlling means of production and own 10 Ferrari’s as long as you don’t defy the CCP.
Communism symbology is a brand, an useful identity to impede other identities to be created.
Since Deng Xiaoping said “it doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice” Communism ended in China.
Chinese never cared about Marxism, some wanted a strong narrative for a power structure, Communism gave that alibi.
USA and UK academia are today world centers of Marxist theory.
Hilarious rant that I’d expect from the likes of the Reform Party…
China is still at heart Marxist by nature, but its leaders aren’t stupid either. They saw how capitalism allowed the West to outstrip the USSR both in technological development and wealth. The USSR ended up bankrupting itself trying to compete, and failed miserably in the process. It’s most visible failure being Chernobyl.
So China sees state-controlled capitalism as a means to an end, to generate wealth and as a weapon that can be used against the West. They don’t see any incompatibility in a communist state using capitalist methods. In the same way they don’t see any incompatibility in a communist state using fascist methods on the populations of Tibet and Xinjiang.
If you think academia in the USA and U.K. are world centres of Marxism then you should surrender now. Because a lot of the technology that’s developed for our weapons systems comes out of research and development conducted in these places. And the scientists and engineers that work in our weapons manufacturers get their degrees from the same academia.
I can’t believe you can say that non-historical calendar with a straight face.
Fascism was born from Marxism and both Marxism and Communism predate Fascism and you say those are “fascist methods” when Communists have been murdering people before Fascism was even idealized. Why did you not write Communist methods?
Fascism has existed long-before Marxism was ever invented. It’s been a constant throughout history. Long before the concept of labelling it as a political ideology it’s been practiced by numerous empires and militaristic societies (eg Sparta).
So you just show you have no clue of what is Fascism.
Fascism was born in Italy in XX Century. Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini, Ugo Spirito and several others.
Since most anglo-saxon schools and media are clownish about anything that was not created in anglo-saxon world it is not unsurprisingly you show the same lack of care for knowledge.
Most Britons don’t want to learn a second language so they are dependent on who have power in the academia, have no access to other sources.
Who made this appeal to be allied with Fascists?
«Popolo Italiano! Fascisti della vecchia guardia! Giovani fascisti! Noi ????? facciamo nostro il programma fascista del 1919, che è un programma di pace, di libertà, di difesa degli interessi dei lavoratori, e vi diciamo: Lottiamo uniti per la realizzazione di questo programma»
Completely wrong. But you’ve shown previously that you’re happy to distort facts to push your political agenda, so it’s no surprise to see you extend this to distorting history too.
Dead right . Its a Leninist-party-state political system, but the whole country is run on state capitalism with private enterprise alongside.
Marxism was a bad joke even in the last 30-40 years of the Soviet union let alone China after Mao.
Its seems the only people believing in Marxism now are those who see a bogey man and consume low intelligence US media
Marxism is the hydra, Communism is an hardcore development, Fascism is a “moderate” development comparatively because it theoretically evolved from Marxism regarding a permanent class struggle which disagreed with, instead developing corporatism and the later(failed) socialization of economy.
Who was Nicola Bombacci? He was someone that your media, education complex don’t want you know who he was…
That’s funny, our media don’t want us to know about him… yet Google turns up hundreds of hits including his Wikipedia entry. This conspiracy of yours to hide him from us doesn’t seem very successful…
Marxism just made one of US mains parties loose an election…
But you are invited to:
(from CampusReform.org):
“It’s the economy stupid”
What lost the US election is a large proportion of Americans who have seen their financial prospects decline regardless of whichever party was in power. Originally this was just in the ‘rust belt’ states as manufacturers moved overseas. But this decline has only accelerated since the 2008 crash with it also found now in the wealthy coastal states. As ordinary people lost jobs, pensions, healthcare and homes they watched as the government bailed out the bankers.
Which is why, when Democracts and traditional Republicans have failed to improve their lot, they’ve voted for the MAGA loonies.
When you daughter arrives back from school and says that the teacher said that she can be a boy or a female and asks you what she should be it is clear the loonies with big power are in your side.
As if that is the personal experience of a hundred million American parents… who are probably more concerned with keeping a roof over their head than whatever some teacher allegedly said at a school.
Trump won 49.9% . Harris won 48.4% of the vote.
Thats doesnt say theres some ideology divide and you wouldnt dream of spouting such if that (1.5%) was the ‘two party’** overall margin in Britain.
**Australia with multipartys but not the european proportional system, counts up final tally of votes as a ‘two party preferred’ to indicate the relative strength of the major partys and their aligned minors ones
PLA navy 8 ships Type 071 LTD
Some LPDs with hangars is best we’ll get, if we get these at all
The whole issue here is just who will press the buy now button so many years down the line. This Labour shower are actively destroying all aspects of growth in the economy with a side of inedible taxation and a post election bunch of promise’s leaving a sour after taste of Lies and deceit.. Add in all the Freebies and gifts received and no sane thinking person can honestly see this bunch surviving a full term….. Get them out now.
It does not help to point fingers at one party or the other party, the main issue is funds and that is related to the economy,
If there is more money in the pocket then can also spend more.
It actually helps a lot really….I’m just highlighting what a shower this bunch is. You might not like it but heck mate, Wake up and smell the coffee. Not one single thing they have done so far has been even remotely positive….. tell me I’m wrong.
Not at all am I defending the current government or the last, somebody had voted in the current government and can also be voted out.
I was just saying you need funds to buy ships, coffee, or wine and China has the funds.
Must admit Reeves budget (ie NI contribution changes) seems to be almost as bad as Kwasi Kwarteng’s. It’s just his unravelled far faster.
Kamakwasi’s budget unravelled faster because it unravelled first within the totally divided Tory party.
ATM Labour is united around Starmer as a drowning drunk is united with the flotation device.
Only partly. It was the danger to the Pension Funds that was his undoing. Due to their structure they have to hold ‘safe’ investments like gilts (government issued bonds). The budget totally undermined confidence in the bond market with the result the pension funds were looking at serious liquidity issues.
Naturally that got MPs alarmed, as unchecked it would have been 2008 or worse, and purely self-inflicted.
Reeves impact has been to undermine confidence by business to invest to expand production; both employing more people or buying new equipment to increase productivity. The result is a brake on growth, opposite of what they want/need. But it’s not a collapse, just stagnation, so no panic on the backbenches.
Youre wrong …just being a die hard Tory doesnt make your Daily Mail photocopy views right
Never voted Tory and never read the Mail but I can see how you came to your wrong conclusion.
He does that all the time… like all conspiracy theorists he’s quick add 2 plus 2 and get 8 quintillion.
And you always have to lower the tone of the conversation here and it is because you cannot vote in your country
British and Scandinavian with some Irish, Ive mentioned this before
Being a sockpuppet doesnt exist beyond your UFWD masters pulling the strings for your peoples diaspora
Most of these “peers” (Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Egypt….?) except US, Japan, Korea and China, use old fashioned, slow and very vulnerable landing craft. So of what utility are those LPD’s in what threat environments?
US, Japan, Korea and China have large hovercraft (LCAC) which are faster, more manoeuvrable, can handle more varied beaches, and thus are arguably less vulnerable and can keep their mother ships over the horizon. It might be argued modern RN is barely a Near Peer of these LCAC equipped navies….. 🙁
An LCAC could be put in the back of Albion or Bulwark. The French have fast ship to shore connectors.
It has been the case for a while we didn’t have the mass but our quality and capability is with the best. With decommissioning our amphibious force that is no longer true.
Having a isopods hanging in the water seems not too bright
This has been subject to much debate on many a forum over the years. UKDJ Stalwarts have done this to death so many times…. Personally |I’m a huge fan but not if we get to a war scenario.
Has there ever actually been an incident where an azipods has e.g. come off its bearings?
I don’t understand how they can be more vulnerable than propellor shafts or rudders, both of which have been weak points for warships for the last century. If anything, you are condensing the points of failure into a single unit.
I recall a long debate on the UKDJ site where various arguments took place and the problem of shock tests seemed to be the main subject.
Pity they destroyed the UKDJ comments system so that it is impossible to debate any more.
I doubt we will see more discussions like that.
Yes, It’s not good there anymore after the shakeup and rearranged comment section.
I was on that site years ago but realised that it was far from impartial and actually rather too over censored. I guess it’s the time of year that George post’s his only joke, I’ll have a look but I bet i’m right.
Ha ha, I used to be on that site too, got booted off for calling George out and yes you are correct, the yearly Santa “Joke” is doing the rounds again………………
The thread was on here – I recall.
NaB, myself and others if my memory serves…..it was a good while back on a thread about QEC design and how the versions evolved and why azipod propulsion was ditched as an option.
Yes
https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
No, we were talking about the pods, you have re posted a 6 year old article relating to the design and displacement. Good to see all the old posters though, TimH used to be pretty prolific, I wonder what happened to him ?
Read it because its relevant. They say the pods were dropped from one of the early iterations because of the shock problem.
Its a reliable source you know
You have chosen to ignore what I wrote about the discussions that were had on another site between many commentators about these Pods. I don’t need to reed your mis aimed repost of an article from 6 years ago, maybe if you read things properly, you’d not get so worked up and talk down to others. Maybe you wouldn’t get in to so many arguments with so many other posters here if you actually understood things rather than randomly taking aim in some sort of childish playground fashion.
It’s not the rest of us, It’s just you.
Thanks, I’ll have a look.
NaB’s contributions are always informative, if not universally gentle and kind.
Pretty sure it was also on the DJ site and that the pods were discussed in depth.
Just a thought, would there be any benefit merging the T32 and mrss projects? Get a largish ship with decent offencive power and space for landing craft or offload systems like uuavs.
They might get merged in spirit but there is no funding for T32 to be merged
If T32 ever happens, I’ll eat my socks. Borris blunder me thinks.
Pictures above… I know it’s not real but seriously… no tie downs or straps evident in the designs and just WTF are all those Toyotas doing there ?
Somebody just had the 3D model lying around?
They can’t have any proper armoured vehicles because the new LSC design can’t accommodate them.
Stick a large calibre machine gun (or larger) on the back of those Toyotas and you have a ‘technical’ – probably the worlds most widely deployed military vehicle…
Or stick an outboard motor on the back and it becomes a Toybota. Which works as a landing craft and a road or off-road vehicle. And it’s proven on TV to be indestructible.
Ha, we certainly have some top gear !
Which we don’t use.
Not yet that desperate, but let’s see after the SDR….
Eureka Naval Craft’s AIRCAT Jaguar is perhaps another vessel solution to consider beyond BAE’s LCS.
It is based upon a vessel design and commercial OEM technologies which are proven and in active use by the offshore energy industry. Furthermore it can also be davit launched.
Perhaps another design to consider is DAMEN’s XFO 123 SF Multi-role Naval Ship. A vessel like this would give the best ROI
DAMEN’s XO 123 SF can offer great versatility if the U.K. is forced to operate with a smaller naval fleet
That’s tiny
Wasn’t this the kind of design the RN was considering as a common platform with the Dutch, but then rejected because they wanted something bigger ? If company sized operations are the future of the RM, this does look suitable, and flexible enough for other roles.
Correct. Dutch want to abandon their big Rotterdam class (sister of Bay class) and have smaller ships with also more multipurpose capability including patrol/OPV.
RN want big ones and might end with nothing.
FWIW the Royal Marines have always been a raiding force. Forced entry against defended beaches has never really been there thing. Yes on occasion they have assisted in such landings. But for the most part it has always been about smaller formations and manoeuvrer warfare. What will scupper this venture is a lack of rotary lift. Fancy ship to shore connectors are one thing. But the reason why such things are uncommon is because helicopters are just superior.
Further while Royal are SPECIAList infantry they are not SPECIAL forces. I am not sure where these ships will be deployed or how they will be used.
But they are also arguably even more vulnerable than a surface ‘multi-role craft’ – even a “stealthy” one, USMC Helo and V22 Sqdns have both Corps and USN fixed wing Sqdns to do SEAD / DEAD for those helo’s. Even if our sole operational carrier was available to support RM Merlin force, it can only be in one place at a time, and will the F35’s ever have the right weapons?
It’s a swings and roundabouts question?
Go look how long it takes even a fast craft to come over the horizon to reach the shore.
And then the party has to transit to the target. You had better telephone 7 Squadron RAF they are unsafe and can’t operate then hadn’t you?
Why mention the carrier when the article is about a new class of ship? I am saying the ship should have aviation facilities if the MoD were serious about this idea. And why mention the whole Junglie force I thought the idea behind all of this was about limited raids? Whatever one of those is……….F35? Eh? The idea is that these raids are launched from one ship not very a CTG. This sole operational carrier you are talking about……..
The whataboutism is strong in your comment it is panda wan.
OK, 2 or 4 Merlins in your raiding force? Or just 1 ? Who cares, because they are less stealthy than the boat (I have worked with them, they are quite loud), and rotor blades are famously good at providing radar returns. There is no whataboutism in pointing out that a reliance on HELO’s, which have their own vulnerabilities, as you literally said “helicopters are just superior”. They are not, for many reasons, but they may have a tactical edge in some scenarios for sure. They are no more a pancea for small tactical raids than they are for any other use case.
Boats are of limited value if your objective is 40 miles from the sea.
There is also the need for logistic supply.
With no solid stores ships, LPD is pretty much useless.
Unless we are talking a LCAC 40-50kt speed – and i seriously think that might be safer make an invasion with individual or two man jetski than a lumbering 18kt LCVP – then helicopters are much faster and certainly can fly at sea level and don’t need to land at a beach directly.
What Helicopters ? !
Exactly!!!!
Seriously can’t you read? Which part of a lack of rotary lift don’t you grasp?
That is what I am talking about there are no helicopters earmarked to support these raiding ships.
Have you started drinking already?
Deary me, just when I thought this site was nicer than all the others, another fool comes along and spoils it. You have a great Christmas my new found friend.
This X bloke is famous for his trolling and abuse, some of us believe he has multiple accounts here like that other bell end SEAN and Wan-R, personally I just think he’s really lonely.
Comment rules:on and above all, avoid personal attacks, however much you disagree.
I count 6 comments under your handle that disparage others and dont add value to the discussion…of course this will trigger…..something
No I dont have multiple accounts, thats for the UFWD diaspora sockpuppets
Look you sad little know nothing, I don’t care what you think of your own self importance, get a life, get a hobby, get some friends…. get off your soap box, no one cares what you wright on here.
As I surmised, a vituperative outburst… still needs reminding
It’s always easy to spot those whose views and opinions don’t hold-up to logical scrutiny by their eagerness to resort to playground name calling….
That’s rich coming from you…. I would class you in the same small sad group of 4 on here that offer nothing but aggression and disrespect for others. Sean, DukeR, Whale Island Zookeeper and AlexS…. Constantly abusive and rudely dismissive of anyones opinions and views… In fact you 4 just act the same as each other. Now please do the rest of us a favour and go troll another site. Run along now.
“Constantly abusive and rudely dismissive” – pretty accurate description of yourself. Though I’d also add “incompetent” as you clearly just post garbage without even sanity checking what you right.
Garbage you say ? Ha ha ha, I see your rubbish all over each and every article, endless abuse of others and not much accuracy/knowledge of any subject. You often reply with “TLDR” rather than engage in adult discussion and I would seriously doubt you “sanity check” your own drivel let alone spell checking the word “right” , I’ll help you out this time, It’s “Write”.
“Albion class LPDs were the first RN vessels to have fully integrated diesel-electric propulsion but it was never entirely satisfactory, being relatively maintenance and manpower-intensive.’
For the fanboys for the so called ‘modern’ diesel and gas turbine warship propulsion never seem to know the background that combining different types of propulsion with their different output speeds and electrical generation is a headache in itself.
The USN in its AB class destroyers went for the low complication of 4x LM2500 mid power gas turbines and the gen sets are also GT being RR MT5 in an integrated power generation unit. probably a higher capital cost ( well they are expensive to build anyway) but the big improvements in fuel efficiency for GT over the last 20 years also apply for marine GT
On this MRSS vessel concept i’m curious as to why the 2x40mm aren’t pushed out a bit more or placed even higher or front and back for a greater arc of fire and or put the two Phalanx’s on the sides? And hopefully these huge ships have some CAMM?
They have decent arcs of fire, to be fair, but overlapping aft. That and the phalanx means I wouldn’t want to be in a small boat chasing this ship!
No sign of CAMM on the models that I saw of this, but it is certainly more heavily armed than is the LPD norm. There’s dragonfire there too.
My main complaint is that it looks like a cruise liner!
Evening SB, if they put the 40mm higher up or more midships they might be able to have bigger magazines as well as a more decent arc of fire. And maybe have some CAMM (24 or 48) for a vessel this size, as skimping on decent defences would create a dangerous exposure. It would be a huge fat target. I think this design is based on a large ferry design so you mayn’t be too far out…LOL. Also the landing craft are not showing any RWS so could also be very vulnerable. I know it’s early days so it’ll evolve.
Merry Christmas and all the best to you everyone here on Navy Lookout and the RN for the New Year! All the articles here are top notch! Good to read alongside ukdj!
I prefer the articles on here but it’s a shame they are too few.
Yes, it’s a pity, but I think it’s just one guy and the quality is excellent.
Agreed, better articles here.
Plus none of the weekly Scottish independence scare stories.
Haha, I’m glad I’m not the only one who see’s his constant personal anti Scottish campaign, it’s such a bore on a so called “Impartial” site. Did you read the 11 year celebration article thanking absolutely everyone on the Planet bar all the loyal commentators on the comments section ? and did you notice all the commentators boot licking replies ? He care’s not one jot for his loyal fans as we have recently seen with the new comments rules.
No I hadn’t as I’ve moved on to better defence related websites.
Can you point me in the direction of any better forums?
I’d got used to just UKDJ and here, but now UKDJ is broken there aren’t really enough articles on NL to be getting on with.
Merry Christmas to you too, Quentin. Enjoying the sun? It’s a bit miserable here.
The RWS are in the funny pop up panels either side of the front ramp on the landing craft. I think the one on the right is a machine gun and the one on the left was APKWS on the model at the trade fair (it’s in a Naval News video).
Sorry to report, it’s going to be a 🌞 26 degrees here in Sydney…but just to say i do have some empathy as i have family and friends in the UK sharing in your weather. LOL. You’re good pointing out the things i miss seeing so I need to pay more attention! All the best. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧
Merry Christmas to most of you. Thanks for all the nice and friendly interactions again this year. Those few miserable posters …We Know Who You Are, take care and enjoy your lonely little lives.
And to you Seasons Greetings Sir
All looks great to me, let’s have the 6 we need and start moving. Thinking out loud for a moment, the NATO/European force that eventually retakes Crimea will need to land ten divisions to make a dent. If we use Crimea as a benchmark for a potential purpose, how would it and its escorts defeat a reasonably defended beachhead? Cruise missile strikes first to eliminate primary defence batteries, shore bombardment for area denial, swarm drones for anti-personell… even then it’s going to need a strong air cover presence to land the initial brigade to take the beach head.
Our need to assist Ukraine in the next 6 to 18 months won’t wait the decade these ships will take to materialise.
No and No.
The turkish straits are closed to non Black Sea naval vessels for the time being. You couldnt send a minesweeper through
What alternate reality do you live in? Just curious LOL
With France wanting to send troops in, the US threatening to stop all aid, although it seems Trump may have back stepped, that would leave a European venture we would be a part of or not. Just deploying troops to one of the many front lines wouldn’t make a real dent, but closing in on Russia from the south of Crimea and pincering them between Europe’s forces and ukraines would squeeze them out.
Turkiye is acting in its own interests and not Natos- ie no sanctions on Russia.
As it controls the Turkish Str its sticking to the international agreements for naval vessels passage. NO naval vessels, apart from its own !
Apart from that the idea is insane on many levels, likely just another UFWD claim by a patriotic volunteer.
It would be good if the upcoming review provides a clear answer on what we actually want to be capable of doing. Unless budgets change, I hope that the answer will be ‘not much more than raiding’ rather than trying to recreate a poorly armed, thrift shop version of a USMC MEU. Reason being that in recent years, we seem to have traded critical mass for maintenance of a broad spectrum of capabilities & it seems like we’re now at the point where this no longer makes sense – we lack resilience with so few hulls. If indeed it’s only to be raiding, perhaps we can increase the T31 buy (maybe slightly tweaked but with very tight change control).
I agree, ability to land lots of troops somewhere else in the world will never go out of fashion esp for an Island nation like Britain. Sad to see Albion and Bulwark termination protrayed as a positive “hard decision” rather than a weak give-away.
The Argies are now getting re-armed, we only managed to eke out a victory last time because they did not wait til John Nott’s cuts had taken full hold. Then, the Navy thought we could afford to lose 12 escorts but no (tiny) carriers. We now struggle to have 12 escort ships afloat at a time. But Argentina is the least of our worries.
The Ukraine war and other peer threats are really serious. If Starmer cuts MoD in the present review, Trump will rebel. Most readers of this site probably think he is a madman but he will rightly try to enforce an increase to at least the US 3.5% of GDP defense spending levels by NATO members, it is their back yard that is threatened, not his.
Meanwhile it is pathetic that Starmer’s main idea is to raise taxes above WWII levels in peacetime to pay for more NH and virtue-signalling “climate change” waste while cutting defense. Britain needs a much warmer climate not a colder one. The recent Conservative govt started this madness. But wealth is not created by taxing private enterprise and putting government bureaucrats in charge. See how that worked out in the Soviet Union.
Sorry for the rant, this topic did stir me to at least post a token reply. This is an important wake up time for Britain, but alas I don’t see any major public figures responding to it in a meaningful way.
All good wishes,
John
British subject now residing in USA
The new Defence secretary has been rightly saying the tory budget they inherited is smaller % GDP than when labour left in 2010.
This isnt the place to discuss taxation, but it MUST rise to allow Defence % GDP to return to the 2010 level. Taxation should be evenly spread not enormous loopholes for the very wealthy like it is in US and UK
Interesting to compare them with the APD high speed transports of the USN during WW2.
High-speed transport – Wikipedia
All
Sadly: I was beaten to it…..
I was going to make the joke that, more than four decades after so many other nations have used them for effective warfighting, that it will be great to see the legendary Toyota landcruiser finally being brought into widespread British military service.
After all, the missile armed Toyota first won its combat spurs back in the big war of the mid 1980’s – Chad vis Libya – when French made milan anti-tank missiles fitted to the Toyota pick-up’s rear A-frames knocked out Russian T55 tanks = en-mass.
However others have beaten me to it……..
…….especially by pointing out that by “doing a Clarkson” – adding a large outboard engine to the tailgate of a Toyota – very quickly makes it a SPLC (Self Propelled Landing Craft)
—————
Frankly what is being shown in these BAE cartoons is far less well thought through than Clarkson’s attempt to cross the Channel for Top Gear = because most of these BAE designed small boats would not get manage to complete a 22 mile sea crossing.
————————
What should be being asked by the RN is the multiple choice question of:
What is the core purpose of a UK amphibious assualt force? Is it to:
If one wants to get really sophisticated, then one adds the second question in the MRSS conceptual design exam paper
Where does one want to play wargames?:
Because that geographical issue makes a huge difference to any ships configuration, in particular defining its Lloyds Classification (wave heights etc) and its on-board environmental engineering (aircon / heating requirements etc)
————————–
Thesethese two questions really need to be asked NOW= because, in the big shipbuilding businesss,like so many others, “FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION”
The RN frankly needs to decides FUNCTION – so how and why and where it needs its amphibious force to deploy – and then – how they will get ashore = because only then will the RN be able to decide the big ship’s and little ship’s size, shape, configuration etc etc
———————[
The job advert the RN ran at this time last year (Nov 2023) for THE key role in the MRSS development programme summed it all up very nicely, in just three short words
= “NO EXPERIENCE NEEDED”
That is why Navy Lookout is publishing these cartoons……..
…..because the cartoonists and their beancounting bosses at BAE really do not have a clue what they are doing….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note1.
Just before the bloke called Mr Pedantic picks up on this one comment…… let me be clear ——I am not proposing to launch unmodified RMC manned snowmobiles from the new RN MRSS ships against hostile Iranian IRGC bases in the Straights of Hummus = at least not without changing their “winter tyres” for “summer tyres” first…..- and also fitting the bootnecks showmobile’s dashboard with a holder for an “MOD standard 99 ice cream cone: with integral drip tray”
Not sure what you mean by these being unable to cross the channel.
20m long puts the LSC in a category with 60ft motor yachts, and those things tend to have seakeeping abilities far beyond what could be expected of a landing craft.
Add in active stabilisation and seat suspension and a journey in those craft ought to be “relatively” stable given adequate provision for the passengers.
I’ve crossed the Channel to Cherbourg (100 miles) in a 9m yacht. People can do the same route in RHIBs on a reasonably calm day.