Plans for Littoral Strike Ships and Fleet Solid Support Ships may be scrapped in favour of more numerous ‘Multirole Support Ships’, the UK Defence Journal has learned.

An inside source that asked not to be identified recently attended a briefing at the Commando Training Centre, also known as CTCRM, discussing information relating to future UK amphibious and littoral capability

Over the last few months, the competition for the Fleet Solid Support Ship was halted and nothing has been heard about the Littoral Strike Ship programme, now it seems there is good reason.

I was told “LSS and FSSS likely to be sacrificial lambs at forthcoming review in order to get MRSS in larger numbers”.

“Ellida will require some tweaks but would appear to reflect the requirements of littoral strike and needs of Carrier Strike”, the source added.

The deletion of FSS and FSSS in favour of smaller but more numerous MRSS vessels fits with current views, “thinking is larger number of smaller targets”.

“It’s a solution that fits the new doctrine. LSS was going to be a 40,000t conversion of merchant ship, big poorly protected target.”

How will this be paid for?

One option appears to be gapping the capability currently provided by the Albion class.

“Probably be a capability gap taken with Albion and Bulwark too as amphibiosity doesn’t fit with littoral strike requirements. Neither were mentioned in the brief other than saying that through “disinvestment” there would be gaps to pay for new capability.”

Please note however that this not a solid plan, merely an option.

What is Ellida?

The ELLIDA concept is a 195m multi-role support and logistics vessel designed to provide the capabilities needed in “future global operations, offering the flexibility of a large hull, with internal vehicle and stowage decks, weather deck stowage and additional accommodation”.

It has the utility to transport and deliver troops, vehicles, equipment and supplies from anywhere in the world in support of amphibious warfare and littoral manoeuvre. Its mix of ship-to-shore offloading and logistics capabilities allow support to naval operations through landing craft, boat operations, multi-spot aviation and replenishment at sea.

 

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

94 COMMENTS

  1. Does this sound familiar. Based on a promise we will sacrifice future ships FSSS, LSS and loose the LPDs so we can afford more of these new ships. Except by the time they are designed and orders negotiated we won’t be able to afford the numbers promised and they will be smaller, stripped back and fitted for but not with.
    Just how many T45s and 26s were we getting.

  2. So 3 Fort, 2 LPD, Argus, and reportedly 2 LSS become, what?
    How many will we get?
    Anything less than 6, as we were to get “up to 3” new FSS, which no doubt means 2, and bingo, numbers reduce again.

  3. Please tell me they will just moth ball Albion and Bullwark rather than sell them off for peanuts?

    I get that we do not get as much use out of them as we seem to with the Bay LPD’s but they are irreplaceable if we ever do need them to transport troops and equipment to the Nordic’s, Falkland’s or anywhere else for that matter.

    With the stimulus package the government is forking out for this f…ing COVID 19 disaster I worry the defense budget will be decimated to pay for it. Who would have thought eating a bat could cause so much destruction.

    • All the COVID stuff should come out of the Aid Budget; end of. It came from Overseas (China as usual, sorry to say) and that’s what should pay. Which reminds me who is going to present the invoice for this in Peking?

      • I agree although looks like the costs will be much greater than the entire foreign aid budget.
        I do think on Principle though all funding to build and maintain RFA ships that are primarily used for foreign aid should come out of that budget, including funding for atlas, merlin and chinook helecoptors to remove the huge shortage we have of them including spare parts.

      • I very much agree that China should pay for this damage from the Virus some how! China Should Stop their military build up, to pay Europe and others to correct the damage.

      • With employment likely decimated for the next few years, military ship building is one useful way to help people get skills and cash to put food on the table for families. Can’t see we need any new Cruise Ships for a while.
        Besides we really do need to build up our merchant navy rather than allow outside powers to run our lives.

        • We don’t build cruise ships anymore. We dont crew them, except for Yorkshire singers.

          And there is no point saying numbers will be cut when the numbers have not been given out in the first place.

  5. A good concept, but politics will see to it that we never have enough to fulfil the gap that will be left by Argus and the Bay classes.

  6. It is worth reading the article on the Save the Royal Navy website about the Ellida concept. They range in size from 120m to 195m, which currently do not have the necessary ammunition storage facilities required by a FSSS. They have all the hallmarks of something that is trying to doing everything in one hull. They are not vessels that you can consider as replacements for the LPD’s as they are like the Bays only built to merchant ship standards and are not front line ships.

      • Don’t think so. As you know, BMT are fundamentally involved in the design of numerous vessel classes for many differing clients, including the FSS for us, of course. I gather Ellida was apparently a separate concept for navies without FSS type requirement. BMT are admittedly very clever, but the tweaking is still going to tax them pretty severely, I’d have thought. Ammunition has already been touched – how about HRAS, etc?
        At present, 1SL is still as upbeat as any RN boss I can recall, stating the next 5 years are going to see further significant operational changes within the Navy on ability and productivity. 2020 he is calling a fulcrum year. Well, we’ll sure find out.

        • I’m sure no-one would risk it. But it just seemed odd that everyone was expecting a big show of BMT/Navantia’s FSS concept at DSEi and there was comparatively little…but instead the Ellida concept turned up.

          Not complaining. In some respects Ellida makes more sense than LSS. But not at the expense of FSS…

          I’m a big fan of BMT’s work, their original Venator (not the 110) was a prescient design way ahead of its time, and the Venari looks like an ideal replacement for Hunt/Sandown. The RN really did, in hindsight, get FSC right. 3 classes of ships is what we will end up with like the C1, C2 and C3. Just not as joined up as originally planned.

        • Hi Daniele
          Yep, the whole chapter gives you an idea of the thinking going on behind the scenes. Future Commando Force is doing a lot of work behind the scenes with Fleet and STRATCOM to make sure that the new structure and offering they put together for defence is fully integrated – by that I mean can seamlessly operate from the tactical to the strategic within the wider MoD and NATO.
          Gen McGOWAN RM now the 3 star at STRATCOM said last week at RUSI – integration is the key, the example he used was RM orientated and he didn’t apologise for that.
          Happy to update readers, if they want of the Land Information Manoeuvre Conference that took place last week at RUSI.

  8. All depends what tasks we are serious about doing. We’ve not been serious about sending and sustaining a large force over the beach for at least the last 15 years. Strike Brigades will need a port to disembark. So ships to put a raiding fore ashore to seize a port could be sufficient. They don’t have to be like for like Albion replacements. Amphibious command and control will come from the Carriers.

      • That is exactly the thought I had when I was reading the piece. These relacements would never do as good a job of supplying a CSG as the FSS could.

    • That’s a valid point. What do we expect and what could we potentially need to do for the next few decades?

      The Falklands always comes up, and for good reason. However, we weren’t exactly landing battle tanks and heavy artillery last time. Air assault platforms and auxiliaries are arguably better suited than dedicated assault ships. It’s a similar case in the Middle East.

      China and the SCS are one big question. Lots of islands with heavy defences to overcome that an assault ship would be very useful for, but it would also be a big priority target. There’s even the question of whether it would be practical for capital ships to even enter the SCS during a conflict

      • Who cares about the SCS. The chances of an RN force being able to deploy there in time for any conflict are minimal. And quite frankly without FSS they wouldn’t be able to deploy for long anyway.

        When you’re talking about real defence needs for the UK you’re talking about CASD, ASW and the Northern Flank.
        Has anyone told the Norwegians that they’re not going to get re-inforced with a Marine Brigade in future?? Don’t get me wrong, the Norgies who are spectacularly minted need to pay the full 2%, and probably more. But they’re never going to have the mass or manpower.

    • Seriously, you believe a raiding party can seize a port? Possibly with no opposition, strategic and tactical surprise. All of those three must line up or that raising party will either quickly get overwhelmed or caught in prolonged house to house to fighting, allowing the oppositions reinforcements to arrive.
      You must have the option of landing on a beach away from a town/port to allow you to better control the area, thus allowing you to form a secure beach head. The days of massed invasion may be over, but the ability of landing heavy vehicles is still very much in need.

      • The commandos made an few great port raids in France in WW2 crippling the western nazis only big dock to suport their fleet. Then the commandos got the hell outathere, well some did lots died and got captured and executed.

        • I think out of the 611 men who took part 170 were killed and another 215 captured which dose not include the air crews.

          But they did destroy the dock and the Hitler sacked the chief of staff to OB west.

          • Yes, but the action was a raid. It wasn’t designed to hold the port. If we are talking about Operation Chariot the raid on St. Nazaire? Its primary mission was to jam the dry dock gate thus preventing its use by German capital ships. This is a completely different concept to taking a port then holding it so heavy equipment can be disembarked. For starters you will need a significantly stronger force, think more along the lines of Arnhem, where the small force had to hold out waiting for reinforcements. What I’m saying is that we should not get rid of capability to do “beach” landings as gives us more options and greater flexibility than trying to take and hold a defended port.

  10. Don’t expect too many shiny new toys anytime soon folks, I’m sure we can all guess where the money is coming from to pay for the emergency economic measures. ?

    “It is currently trading at $1.15, a fall of almost 5% in just one day.

    It comes as financial markets tumbled again after major stimulus plans failed to quell fears about the economic impact of the virus.

    The Dow ended down 6.3%, while the S&P 500 fell 5.1% and the Nasdaq dropped 4.7%.

    Earlier the Dow and S&P 500 had plunged more than 7%, triggering an automatic temporary halt to trade, but shares recovered some ground as Congress appeared set to approve a relief bill.

    The pound’s weakness could partly stem from questions over how the UK government plans to pay for the emergency economic measures it has introduced, says Neil Wilson, chief analyst for Markets.com.”

    • Could argue the same for most of the european nations and indeed the US stimulus packages. What magical place are they all getting the cash from?!

      Anyways good news in that China has no new internal cases today, gives other countries some hope and a time line for potential spread to stop. What happens next, all eyes on China!

        • I have no doubts they have lied quite badly at the start of this world wide issue, especially throughout December when it was virtually unknown but I don’t think they would be that stupid to do it now. WHO and far too many other countries/scientists are watching how it pans out in the country. Iran, Russia and quite a few others however………

    • The only thing that might help the economic situation, is that absolutely everyone is in exactly the same boat.

      So the economy may temporarily tank, but it will tank along with everyone else and post the Corporal Jones “don’t panic” mentality, the entire world will be desperate to kick start and turbo charge trading again…

      Expect to see international trade barriers come crashing down and global free trade like we have never seen….

      Trump’s policy of US isolation will be left trailing in the dirt after this .

      • Plus we will likely do whatever is needed to have free trade with the EU, which might be unpalatable for some but after this crisis I think they will just have to get used to it.

      • Breaking News.

        Bank of England cuts interest rates to 0.1%
        The Bank of England has cut interest rates again in an emergency move as it tries to support the UK economy in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

        It is the second cut in interest rates in just over a week, bringing them down to 0.1% from 0.25%.

        Interest rates are now at their lowest level in history.

        The Bank said it would also increase its holdings of UK government bonds.

    • The first developed country to get heard immunity either through vaccine or infection rate will be the first to bounce back economically that where investment will go initially, those where their could be reinfection will continue to be weak economically. Ironically if its through infection rate that could be countries that have had the highest death tolls.

    • Why pick on the UK, everyone’s economy is hit.
      Spending on armaments in fact is an easy way to kick start the economy. Filling potholes as well. Giving vouchers to spend… say a free 50p on every £1.

  11. Sort of on subject but what is the reasoning behind the historic seperation of the RN and RFA? Considering that these days the roles of the two seem to have become more intertwined, would it not make a case for combining the two? I am thinking in particular of the recent deployments of for example the Bay Class to the Caribbean performing essentially the same work as their RN counterparts. What are the advantages in retaining the the two commands and could savings be effected by combining them?

    • The saving is gained by not combining them.
      RFAs like the Bays doing a job in the Gulf or WI are cheaper than having the RN do it.

        • The reason for the seperation is historical. The RFA comes out of the old Vicualling and Transportation Board and the Ordnanace Board. The first was to supply food, stores and spares for the RN the second was to supply guns and munitions to the fleet. They were and the RFA still is a government orginisation (Act of Parliament), the RN is with the perogitive of the Monarch.
          So thats the reason for the seperation it goes back to Henry VIII.

          • Thank you for that Ron. Like much of the history and structure of the UK, delightful anachronisms and age old traditions but I wonder(and merely pose the question) if maybe time to relook at that arrangement aling with the House of Lords!

            regards from Durban

          • I wonder if the RFA get the same training and pay as RN. If they are merged, I worry it’ll be an excuse to lump the numbers together to make them sound bigger, allowing yet more cuts, or the shifting of numbers away from the more highly paid/trained crews.

          • I think the RFA can also have access to more ports, bith friendly and neutral, as they are seen as “Merchant” ships rather than “Warships”

          • Howrya doin Mark! Good point and one that had not occurred to me. Certainly the Bays have been well received in the Caribbean

  12. Possibly the design for the MRSS could be based on the Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt concepts of the Dutch Navy. However if so they would need to find an extra five knots. I would keep the Albions possibly in the mother ship role for ROVs, autonomous mine sweepers etc.

  14. It is very negative discussion, I think.

    SSS never needs well-dock. It takes huge space, large door (with powerful hydro arm requiring huge maintenance load), and large pumps to fill/dry the dock. Huge wast of money (We know USN America-class LHA lost huge amount of aviation facility and internal storage, by adding a well-dock from hull-3).

    LPD-like hull shape will make the ship slower = needs larger engine = more cost and fuel to meet the speed required for CVTF supply.

    All in all, with the same amount of supply capability, ELLIDA-like ship will cost much much more (by nature). In reality, with the same amount of money, the supply capability will see huge drop. Not surprised even if it be halved or 1/3.

    If so, I would like to simply build two small SSSs with half the capability of the original SSS. It will be very efficient solution.

    Only possible solution will be, build the SSSs slightly larger. Then, ADD good helicopter facility and boat carriage, so that, ONLY WHEN CVTF is NOT on task, they can be “re-rolled” as LSS.

    In other words, accept RN will NEVER do “LSS-requiring operations” and “CVTF strike capability requiring operations” at the same time. For example, if the RN CVTF is doing strike operation in the Persian Gulf, RN will lose LSS-based raid capability.

    No problem, because UK has Bay-class to do most of (if not all) the LSS-based raid tasks.

  15. In my mailbox today,

    You may be aware that the Government reaffirmed its solid commitment to protecting and
    supporting the Armed Forces in the Queen’s Speech of 19 December 2019.

    The Government will maintain its commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on Defence every year of this Parliament and increase the Defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation year on year.

    An additional £2.2bn has been invested in Defence over 2019/2020. This additional Defence spend will ensure that our world-class Armed Forces can continue to modernise to face intensifying threats, prioritising key capabilities such as offensive cyber, anti-submarine warfare and the nuclear deterrent.

    Growing for the first time in a generation, the RN will have new aircraft carriers,
    submarines, frigates, patrol vessels, aircraft, support ships and tankers. On 12 September
    2019 the Prime Minister announced that Babcock had been selected as the preferred
    bidder for the Type 31 frigate. The Type 31 will be at the core of the RN’s surface fleet,
    deterring aggression and maintaining the security of the UK’s interests.

    They will undertake missions such as interception and disruption of those using the sea for unlawful purposes, intelligence collection, protecting the transit of other vessels and assisting those in need. Crucially, the Type 31 will also release the Type 45 destroyers and Type 26 frigates for their specialist combat roles in support of the RN’s strategic nuclear deterrent, and as part of the Maritime Task Group. We expect the first Type 31 to be in the water in 2023 and Babcock is contractually obligated to deliver all five Type 31 frigates to the Ministry of Defence by the end of 2028.

    As confirmed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR 2015), eight anti-
    submarine warfare Type 26 frigates will be procured which will provide critical protection to

    the Continuous At Sea Deterrent and Maritime Task Groups. They will build on the
    pedigree of the RN’s current Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates which have served
    the nation well. Steel for HMS GLASGOW was cut in July 2017, and for HMS CARDIFF in
    August 2019. The remaining batch 1 ship, HMS BELFAST, is on order and we expect
    manufacture to start in 2021. It is planned that the contract for the second batch of five
    Type 26 frigates will be awarded in the early 2020s.

    Navy Command

    I hope this information is helpful to you and I would like to thank you for your interest in the Royal Navy.

    Yours sincerely
    Navy Command Secretariat

    Additionally and in response to an earlier communique as of Feb 2020,

    While the fourteen P2000 Fast Inshore Patrol Craft from the First Patrol Boat Squadron
    support the University Royal Naval Units, they also contribute to a wide range of Fleet
    tasking. The Scimitar class ships of the RN’s Gibraltar Squadron watch over Gibraltar’s
    shores and support ships in the Strait of Gibraltar. HMS SCIMITAR and HMS SABRE,
    along with three Pacific Rigid Inflatable Boats, support British exercises and operations in
    the area. The MOD is currently in the process of procuring two new vessels to replace the
    Scimitar Class which will see a significant increase in capability compared with the current
    vessels.

  16. I like this concept, we need to move away from small numbers of very large single use vessels, however, the loss of the Albion’s would be a huge loss of capability. Therefore, how about we build a fleet of 8 Ellida, but in two different variants. 4 which have more space allocated to stores, fuel, munitions etc and tasked primarily with supporting carrier strike and larger task groups, but still retain a lower level of.multirole capability. The other 4 could be designed to operate more individually in the LSS, mothership and LSD roles but have a higher level of defensive weapons fit to include some seaceptor and defensive guns. These would have enlarged well docks and aviation facilities. We could the keep one of the LPDs, pass it to the RFA and convert to replace Argus in the aviation training and hospital role for which I think it could be fantastic, but it could be quickly retasked and adapted back to full LPD role in the unlikely event we ever have to transport a battalion across an ocean again.

    • ??

      SSS budget was 1B GBP. LSS budget was zero (ref. NAO report), and needs at least 400M GBP. Also, basically there are 3-13B GBP shortage in equipment budget, even though the “2% GDP”, “0.5% more” blah-blah is committed.

      If it is 8 hulls with 1B GBP, it is 125M GBP per hull… What size of ship you are thinking of? At most, something a size of HMNZS Canterbury = a 8000t FLD “ferry” with 19knots top speed.

      • No Donald, I am not just talking about a like for like, but a change in fleet structure. I would like to see 2 or 3 variants of this base design built over the next 15-20 years to fill the FSSS role and also replace the Waves, bays, Albion’s and the forts. In fact 8 is not enough! These would be the workhorse of the fleet, all being multi role but with each variant having a different specialisation.

        • Thanks, T.S.-san

          But, Fort Rosaile and Fort Austin are to decommission by 2024, while LPD/LSDs will be there until 2035-40. If you replace two Forts with 2 Ellida-like, it is a huge drop in cargo supply capability, and until 2035-40 it will not be filled.

          If the capability can be gapped for another 15-20 years, do RN need it anyway? Good way to kill QNLZ/PoW actually. “Carrier without supply” is just a box. It is much better to disband them.

          SSS must be there. As the allocated 1B GBP was “not enough”, capability required for SSS can be relaxed to save money. But, if it becomes Ellida, it forces further significant reduction (adding well-dock is expensive).

          Do not forget FLSS has no budget allocated. At least for the first 2 hulls, they are talking about “re-locating the 1B GBP of SSS” for this MSS.

  19. Couldn’t agree more with this

    9 x MRSS with similar capabilities to the dutch Karel Doorman type would be a game changer. Yes this will need tweaked for our requirements, but if we get it right its a game changer. You only have to look at the specs of the Karel doorman to see that what it offers is incredible.

    Add in S2S connectors, or Caimen 60’s and a munitions capability (potentially via hardened containers) and we can have a very good capability.

    These should be capable of holding

    4 x Merlins or 2 Chinooks
    8 x CB90’s or 2 Caimen 60’s + 2 x S2S connectors

    It may even be preferable to go down the FLO FLO route and build a load of mega modules that the Goliath Crane can load (adding another Goliath in CL Liverpool) and Portsmouth

    This would increase the utility and flexibility of these ships even more.

    Think defence have an amazing article on Flo Flo’s.

    last thing we need are ships with Niche capabilities that are always targeted for cuts. We need something with high utility and flexibility

    • Pacman 27, I agree with your comments, possibly the MRSS could be based on either the Karel Doorman or the Johan de Witt class vessels with a speed of 22-25 knts.
      Nine of these to replace the Bays, Argus, LSS, FSS would be good, but how about a few more, operating as forward repair ships or a hospitality ship. Yeep crews need to relax, down time, and the locations where British troops work does not always give the possibility. Think about it for a second, in WW2 when the British Pacific Fleet was sent out they sent a hospitality ship with it, the Yanks saw this and went whow we don’t even have that. Then again they didn’t have Mosquito’s to fly of the decks. When we think of Afganistan, where could the troops relax for 48 or 72 hours, nowhere, if there was a ship of shore a company at a time could get two-three days down time. Good for moral means good for results.

      • that’s the beauty of the FLO Flo’s Ron

        order 15 Flo Flo’s at 100m each and then build the mega modules as needed.

        Think Defence has an article that is pretty enlightening. You need solid stores, put the SS module on. Hospital – no problem, Tanker – easy…..

        All you need is storage space to keep the modules and some bloody big cranes.

        they also help pay for themselves as there is an annual trade in moving ships around.

        perhaps this isn’t ideal – but like a lot of things it does offer a really good solution and almost takes the boxer idea to the seas.

        this is done now in offshore etc, so its all proven and should be less expensive and more flexible.

  20. When is a Fleet Solid Support Ship not a FSSS? When you cross it with an amphibious platform dock. The correct solution for the RN is to:

    Replace Albion, Bulway AND Ocean with 2 Canberra / MIstral type amphibious platform dock / helicopter assault ships. 2 such vessels would be cheaper and have more capacity than at present.

    Build the FSSS as originally thought of; without which the reach of the Carrier Groups will be very much restricted.

    Build 3 Littoral Support Ships to replace the Bay class and charge it to the foreign aid budget as that is what they will spend most of their time doing.

    This multi-role support ship idea is a non-starter because unless we have about 8 of them there will never be enough to go around the various roles intended.

    Won’t happen though because the defence round following CV19 may well be apocalyptic for the MOD.

      • The problem with this Rob, is that they sit tied up as they are niche capabilities and are then targets for the bean counters.

        I believe we are better off having something we can use all the time, re role as necessary and get a volume and drumbeat that means when we do actually need a niche capability we can build it.

        or we can do Flo Flo’s with mega modules and have it all when we need it

        • Unfortunately whilst it might seem attractive those same bean counters will reduce the number of your flexible vessels because they can undertake so many different roles. It will be another excuse to cut numbers and would prove totally counterproductive.
          I also fail to see the logic of investing in two super carriers that are ultimately used to effect events on land if you then reduce your amphibious lift to nothing more than a ferry service.
          Whilst technology certainly changes and new ship to shore systems are required the LPDs and LSD(A) we actually have are relatively modern and are bought and paid for. Do we need to replace these vessels or build 3FSSS – what the MOD need to do is design 3 ships within the available budget and not come up with a specification they can’t afford.
          Ironically of course the ships laid up are not the Bays or Albion but the existing tankers and Forts but many on here seem very keen to get rid of them for a promise of something new.
          Long term of course your idea of some Karel Doorman type vessels to replace the Bays/Argus makes sense and they could certainly be based on a common hull and machinery from the 3 FSSS we should be ordering this year.

          • Fair points all, I am certainly not advocating ditching stuff immediately every comment I make about shipbuilding is set in context of a 25 year timescale

            We need to always be thinking about what the fleet will look like in 25 years time, not today and making decisions based upon that.

            I suspect it would take a good 10-20 years to get through rebuilding the amphib/RFA fleet and FLO FLO’s are inexpensive hulls with the actual capability in the mega modules. We just build more modules than we need and if push comes to shove, we either buy some Flo FLO’s in an emergency or accelerate the build programme, which should be constant. The RN should realistically being ordering 1 hull per year and selling off after 15 years to the commercial sector.

            I would recommend everyone reads the Think Defence article on FLO FLO’s, it really is an eye opener and potential game changer.

            https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/royal-navy-flo-flo/

          • Pacman27 your points are always well considered and my comments are certainly not aimed at your logic because they always seem sound. It is in the political context where based on experience potentially good ideas nearly always seem to be undone by the MOD.

          • Yup – it is sad and now it looks as if further cuts will be on their way. I hope the government dont cut jobs themselves in order to fund paying for private sector, but wouldn’t rule it out.

            It would be a good time to invest in highly skilled defence jobs in the UK, post Brexit/Corona and whilst I dont expect that to happen as, but we should remember that defence industrial sites are often located in the poorest parts of our nation (barrow, Glasgow, preston etc) and are the lifeblood of those areas. Either way we pay for it I would like to see us get more from it.

            We need to invest to get this back on a manageable footing me thinks.

  21. I’m reasonably in favour of more vessels such as ellida & could sacrifice lss. They could do the role & replace Argus. Not sure about FSS as this seems more a specialist role & I didn’t think the Ellida design was design for large ammunition supply? Also as FSS is nothing to do with amphibious operations I’m a bit cynical this would be directly discussed with commandos!? I could understand and accept the optional 3rd going, but thought FSS was pretty integral to carrier operations & Ellida isn’t the answer.

    Getting rid of the Albion class would be absolutely foolish.
    One we lose the ability to replace the class with a LHD
    Two we lose command & control
    Three if we cannot do amphibious operations what’s the point of the Carrier’s?
    Four if lose LPDs what happens to rational of LSD’s
    Five what’s the point of strike brigades if we cannot secure a port when we don’t have land access?

    One of the reason American carrier groups make sense is they have USMC behind them?! I know amphibious is out of fashion at the moment due to anti ship missiles etc. But I can’t see at the current time any other way of getting heavy equipment ashore.

  22. The biggest issue regarding amphibious assault is our ship to shore connectors are too slow and this is recognised in RUSI before we start buying new vessels I’d rather us look at the replacement & possible argumentation of LCUs so all the new ships don’t get destroyed

  24. The QE’s have unique replenishment requirements that are best met by one or preferably two specialist supply ships. It doesn’t make much sense to inflate the unit cost of a MRSS to add capabilities that most units will rarely, if ever, use. I wonder if there is any possibility that RFA Fort Victoria could cost effectively be given a life extension refit (adding HRAS?) to keep her going in to the 2030’s? Scrapping her sister ship, Fort George, after just 20 years service is still looking like a big mistake.

    The RN seems to have long regarded trying to replace the Albion’s as a lost cause, prioritising funding for other projects. Very reluctantly, I think they may be right.

    • From a quick skim through the RUSI paper, the authors are proposing this LSS for a small first-wave Commando landing, any larger reinforcement – they posit a Commando and possibly a light infantry battalion – would be by Albion and then, maybe, the Carrier strike group would pitch up.

      They do not appear to be proposing the replacement of Albion and Bulwark by LSS. It is only an idea – and a debatable one – of how the reduced Commando force might operate in the future. It would be a mistake to conflate the RM’s quest for a new, slimmed down role with the replenishment needs of the fleet, as represented by the Forts and FSC. The replenishment ships need to go everywhere and carry everything a naval task force or overseas garrison needs, which is why they are the size they are.
      Far better to stay on course with the 3 x FSS and develop something smaller and more specialist for this mooted Commando raiding role on a hostile coast.

      • Totally agree about the RUSI paper and it is clear they are not suggesting the LSS replace anything but supplement what we already have. To me the very obvious mistakes and pointed out at the time was the scrapping of Fort George and selling Largs Bay. Very simply extending the life’s of Fort George and Fort Victoria would probably mean an order for only two FSSS would now be required. The four Bay class vessels with a proper hanger reinstated could provide a poor mans LSS. The Navy could then be looking at extending the lives of the two LPDs to 2040 when perhaps the budget becomes available to provide a couple of LHDs type vessels along with a multi role replacement of the Bays. What would I sacrifice at the moment then sadly I would say the two Wave Class tankers and Argus. You can take tankers up from trade in an emergency but not ships with well decks.
        There is of course a more fundamental point here, which is why would a maritime nation want to reduce its elite amphibious forces, which are recognised by friend and foe alike as in the top tier and keep under strength 2nd rate infantry battalions. Only in the distorted world of inter service rivalry, protecting ones own budget and branch would this ever be considered. If Mr Dominic Cummings could see past that he would be doing the country a huge favour.

  25. Would this design fit into replenishing the two super carriers? Can they deliver the same dry solid and liquid supplies? Do they fit into Staff requirments? What are staff requirments? How much would they cost to build per ton compared to a full FSSS? Is this just a BMT offering that the navy will have to accept even if it does not fulfill staff requirments? What happened to RCNC? Would a in house elite in house but can do commercial ( and do well because it has RN connection) RCNC be better value for the tax payer than BMT? These ships with the largest dimension still come out around 30,000 tons.

  26. Time to poor a bucket of cold vomit on the idea, here is the well known and knowledgeable about ship building matters ‘Not a boffin’ comments about this on the Save the Royal Navy blog:

    “N-a-B
    This is the worst sort of good ideas club nonsense. Here’s a few facts to help the debate.

    1. There is no capability requirement for LSS (ie rationale for its existence), let alone a detailed requirement (ie how many troops, helicopters, boats etc). It remains an NCHQ wet dream unsupported by any rigour.

    2. The FSS requirement does exist, was derived from extensive studies over 10+ years and is essential for Carrier Strike. It results in a ship considerably larger than 25000 tonnes – the NDP designs were around 40000 te and they were tight on space, deck area etc.

    3. The primary features of FSS are driven by ammo stowage, and cargo handling. These are in many places fundamentally incompatible with what is likely to be needed for LSS or a PCRS.

    4. There’s a reason FSS was an international competition. There is simply insufficient technical and fabrication capacity in the UK to do this, in any sensible timeframe. Govan is going to be toppers with T26 all decade. Rosyth will have its hands full with T31 until 2028 and possibly beyond. Birkenhead has had its fingers badly burned by SDA and is also busy with steel for Barrow and T45 Napier. Belfast has a tiny workforce and minimal facilities. UK technical staff are busy doing submarines, T31, T26, supporting QEC, T45 etc. There is no capacity to build 2 or 3 40000 te ships in the timeframe required.

    5. Fort Vic is only barely capable of supporting QEC and her material state will only get worse.

    6. People who talk about “common hulls” tend to have no idea how much the hullform ( shape) costs to develop, rather than the hull design ( structural calcs, drawings etc). The latter is where the money goes and changes with internal arrangement. Which means that different roles tend to have different arrangements and hence designs.

    7. When BMT first launched Ellida they were clear it wasn’t capable of doing FSS. Their less than enthusiastic statements above about using Ellida as a basis should be a clue.

    NCHQ are currently engaging in a desperate game of trying to get two or three capabilities from one budget. It won’t work, will increase eventual costs and may fatally compromise Carrier Strike.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here