BAE Systems Maritime has set out further detail on its joint UK–Norway Littoral Strike Craft (LSC) programme, describing it as a fast, low-signature vessel designed to support modern amphibious operations in contested coastal environments.
Developed in partnership with Norwegian shipbuilder Umoe Mandal, the LSC is intended to provide rapid over-the-horizon insertion of small strike teams and equipment, operating in areas where larger naval platforms may be constrained. The craft is designed to transport personnel “fit to fight”, combining high speed with improved seakeeping and survivability.
According to BAE Systems, recent design assurance trials at the Wolfson Unit in Southampton tested the craft at speeds of up to 50 knots and in sea state 5 conditions. The tank testing programme assessed reliability, survivability and seakeeping, with the company stating the results validated the maturity of the high-performance design.
The LSC is positioned as a reconfigurable, multi-role platform. Beyond troop transport, it is designed to integrate a range of sensing and effect capabilities, supporting missions from counterterrorism to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. BAE describes the concept as a shift in surface manoeuvre craft, bridging open ocean transit and complex littoral operations.
The collaboration, the firm say, follows a visit to Umoe Mandal’s Norwegian yard focused on design-for-manufacture and industrial workshare.
Has the MoD shown any interest in this as the LCVP replacement?
As contested was one of the excuses to get rid of LPDs, I hope they’ve got a good range…..
Contract issue for CIC is supposed to be very soon, it will probably be wrapped up with the other DIP decisions. BAE are competing with BMT’s catamaran LCVP thing, Griffon’s half-hovercraft and Leidos UK’s Sea Dagger stern landing craft. 200km transit radius at high speed was one of the key requirements of CIC so they will all have good range.
My money is on a shoot-out between Leidos UK and BAE, as Griffon’s concept looks too novel (though I think it would work, it’s smaller than I initially thought) and BMT’s catamaran looks too slow and unstealthy.
Ah, thanks. You’re the man ( boy!? 😉) for all things contracts and concepts.
The BAE proposal is by far any away the best fit, BMTs catamaran is an LCU replacement and Griffons solution is just too novel.
The Sea Dagger looks good to anyone who has never been on a boat because the idea of taking any craft near the shore and then turning to seaward in a beam on manoeuvre will know it is not realistic in anything other than perfect conditions.
BMT have a smaller catamaran that sits alongside Caimen (the CUC trimaran candidate and frontrunner). It’s visible in their Ellida Strike images.
I agree that Griffon’s idea is very novel, they really need to build a scale model and test it before anyone would trust them with a contract.
I would point out that all landing craft have to turn beam on to the waves at some point, Sea Dagger just shifts that point to before the landing. The idea (from Steller initially, Leidos bought the IP) was that a hasty retreat is more likely than a hasty landing and so it is better to take the time for a stern landing than have to do extra manoeuvres when the enemy are all riled up after the raid.
Never knew that about the STELLER – LEIDOS design connection 🤔
Steller had some great ideas
I’m leaning towards it being a fight between BAE Systems(LSC) and Leidos UK’s Sea Dagger
It was suggested when Sea Dagger was first announced because it looked so similar to the Steller CIC, but they also have some interesting low-profile USVs that they inherited from Steller- the hump-backed ones with the dorsal fin in the Sea Dagger videos.
I didn’t phrase my comment about the BMT proposal very well so apologies but I can’t help think it would be a great replacement for the LCU MK 10. Not so convinced about a smaller type of this design or similar personally.
You are right all landing craft need to turn beam on but to turn beam on whilst full of troops and or small vehicles is not a good idea and as for re-embarkation whilst under fire then the least of your problems will be turning before getting away.
The other flaw is that for reasoning of providing reasonable sea keeping the vessels keel (however small) and propulsion will be in the stern of the vessel along with the power plant. Naturally this leads to the vessels maximum draught being in the wrong place for what this craft is supposed to do. Of course all this can be at least partially offset but the remedies reduce other qualities this craft needs particularly the ability to perform well offshore at high speeds without incapacitating the cargo.
I am looking forward to seeing what happens and how they take this forward, which is essential for us to stay in the amphibious business.
But with the raiding concepts they are going to be leaving fully loaded just as they arrived, so I don’t see the difference? Nor are they going to be fighting right out of the door, but ‘fit to fight’ did feature a lot in the CIC writing so I don’t know.
Sea Dagger has a very flat hull from the DSEI models, Steller CIC had some interesting hollow steps in the hull.
From the short cutaway shown at DSEI the engines themselves are amidships, presumably there are long shafts to the waterjets.
I think the RM are expecting the CIC to do more than just raiding but like you I am not so sure – the RM are at times both conservative and innovative in my experience.
Travelling at speed offshore in moderate sea conditions in a craft with largely a flat bottom hull would be a marginal improvement on doing the same in a slower conventional landing craft but it is hardly revolutionary and probably not that useful in what are quite often rough northern waters.
That does sound logical I have to say. These days where stealth and surprise will be behind the philosophy of landing troops, if you are under fire before the landing there is much greater likelihood you will abort rather than continue under fire as surprise will surely be the major goal and if the landing is in progress or over you need to get away asap. Nice bit of lateral thinking.
Yes it’s a new concept.. they can actually get from Poole harbour to anywhere on the northern flank directly.. so you don’t need ships anymore.. they will also be autonomous so no crew.. just load up the marines, program the destination and off they pop.. from home to beach in 15 hours… they can even network with the new Mickey Mouse class autonomous ASW and AAW plastic boats ( the American company that build them made us name them that or Donald would tariff the car we planed to exported to America).. the only issue is the Mickey Mouse only does 4 knots.. so it can only manage the escort function until they get into the Solent ( but the Ukraine war showed that harbour is the most deadly bit so that’s all fine )…
J.
I’m worried that my long term cynicism about HMG has worn off on you….plus a dose of humour! 😆
I can’t say too much but from what I am witnessing the mood music has recently definitely changed and a need to get things done more quickly is at last on the agenda notwithstanding there is still the typical institutional challenges to be faced.
Hi M8. I’m not surprised by this idea just seriously impressed that someone has pursued the idea and it isn’t new but it is still very clever.
If you do a search for “Commandos raid alongside Norwegian Stealth Ship in the Arctic” you will find a RN article on how the RM used a Skjold Corvette for landing in Norway back in 2020.
To the uninitiated the concept picture looks like an SEC (Surface Effect Craft) which is a cross between a catamaran and hovercraft and Umoe Mandal are the “World Leaders” in this tech (just for once that isn’t a bit of Political BS).
They have designed and manufactured Fast, Stealthy, SEC vessels for over 20 years, in fact the best known ones are the Skjold Corvettes that have visited the UK for exercises over the last few years (which gives you some idea of their range).
So if you want a little insight into what sort of capability this can deliver have a read up on the Norwegian Skjold Class Corvette because this is a development of that (just maybe DG powered rather than GT).
It may be sad for those that want to still be able to carry out a brigade sized contested landing over the beach landing. But if they are serious about refocusing on NATO and the far North then IMHO the RM and RN Amphibious lift has to move towards rapid raiding and insertion backed up by Sealift Capacity for Logisitics. This ticks the box for one and we just hope MRSS either backs that up with something like the Points for heavy lift or a large enough to do both !
The one other thing I would like to see is someone buying some BAe ACVs to back them up !
I do like the way we are interacting with the JEF nations, particularly Norway. There is so much we can do together. This is another step forward.
The Scandis are quite possibly our most natural European allies; non-EU, isolated from mainland Europe beyond a few Danish bridges, disproportionately affected by the maritime and air domains, and are positioned along our greatest threat vector from Russia.
Spot on (well not quite on EU but close enough). Norway is going to be our priority in any conflict that’s where our true danger lies sea, air and land.
Exactly my feeling. It all just feels very natural, and I hope we focus on this as much as possible. It turns the Baltic Sea into a NATO/Scandi lake. The divisions in Europe that were always there, but papered over by the EU, are starting to become all too visible again under the threat of a recidivist Russia seeking to create a New USSR.
And let’s be honest if we are going to take part in operations of this nature then overwhelmingly they will take place on the coasts of Scandinavian nations and in particular Norway. Only the eastern Mediterranean otherwise seems to be a likely scenario so far less our turf (probably not the right word).