Speaking at the Conservative Party conference, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced that the first Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship (MROSS) will be purchased this year and be operational next year. A second vessel designed specifically for this task will subsequently be constructed in the UK. Here we take a brief look at the context and implications of this project.
Official discussion of a seabed surveillance ship has been in the public domain since Boris Johnson’s Speech in November 2020 promising “to make the UK Europe’s foremost naval power” and included the plan to build a “new multi-role research vessel”. The vulnerability of submarine infrastructure has been a growing concern. In 2017 the think tank, Policy Exchange published a landmark document written by Rishi Sunak outlining the threat to undersea cables. The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines on 26 September has further focussed minds on the danger to undersea energy installations.
Seabed warfare in the Baltic
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were built to deliver gas from Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany. NS1 was damaged by two explosions and NS2 by a single explosion in incidents recorded off the coasts of Denmark and Sweden. Seismologists report the explosions were equivalent to the detonation of around 100 kilograms of TNT. Since the war in Ukraine, neither pipe was supplying Gas to Europe but the new NS2 was already filled with 177 million cubic metres of gas (worth about €358 million) to bring the pressure up to 300 bar ahead of pumping which never started. The leaking gas posed a small danger to local shipping but the unburned methane, a powerful greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere represents a minor environmental disaster. About 500 million cubic metres of gas escaped – the equivalent of 8 million tons of carbon dioxide or 0.02% of total annual global CO2 emissions.
It cannot be stated with certainty who caused the explosions but the Russians are by far the most likely culprit. Not only does their navy have the expertise and experience to carry out such an attack, but this kind of sabotage is also straight from their playbook of deniable nefarious activity covered by bare-faced lies and distractions. Significant Russian naval activity has been noted in the Baltic and it is not hard to imagine that UUVs were discreetly deployed to place explosives near the pipes to be detonated at a later date. There is even some speculation that the Russians may have placed explosives in the pipelines while they were constructed giving them an option to weaponise energy supplies if needed. Further investigations of the damage to the pipes may eventually provide more conclusive evidence about the method of attack and even the culprit.
The usual suspects were out in force to suggest the US was responsible for this “false flag” operation because President Biden had said he could “put an end” to Nord Stream during a speech on February 7th. His implication was that this could be done by sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Germany and no one sensible considered him to be threatening a clumsy kinetic attack. It should be remembered that Trump, Biden and others repeatedly warned Germany about the folly of energy dependence on Russia but were ignored. The US Navy certainly has the capability but it is not credible to believe they would physically attack NATO allies in this way.
Gas prices surged again after the event, placing further financial pressure on Europe as Russia desperately tries to undermine NATO support for Ukraine. Most significantly, Russia is signalling it has the capacity to attack other oil and gas installations such as in the Norweigan Sea and North Sea upon which the UK is highly dependent.

New ships
With this wake-up call making seabed warfare a hot topic again, the Defence Secretary admitted how fragile the UK economy and infrastructure might be in the face of such hybrid attacks. “Our internet and our energy are highly reliant on pipelines and cables. Russia makes no secret of its ability to target such infrastructure, so for that reason, I can announce we recently committed to two specialist ships with the capability to keep our cables and pipelines safe. The first multi-role survey ship for seabed warfare will be purchased by the end of this year, fitted out here in the UK and then operational before the end of next year. The second ship will be built in the UK and we will plan to make sure it covers all our vulnerabilities.”
The details of how MROSS (1) will be delivered have not yet been announced but the first ship will be obviously purchased from commercial service for conversion. This could possibly be a platform supply vessel (PSV) or diving support vessel (DSV) with a large working deck at the stern, cranes and A-frame for recovering UUVs. Ideally, the vessel will have adequate accommodation for crews on long patrols, a UUV ‘hangar’ and workshop, a command and control facility and a good communications suite. (The video below provides a good example of the type of vessels operated by Ocean Infinity.) Other than light force protection weaponry, it is unlikely the ship will be armed. The ship may retain a civilian crew but have an embarked RN party. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is short of people and it is unclear if it is in a position to generate the crew for an additional vessel within a year.
MROSS (2) will be purpose-built for the task but the ‘Multi-Role’ aspect of the project should be noted. A replacement for HMS Scott is needed but her main task of plodding up and down the ocean mapping up to 150Km2 of the seabed per hour using powerful sonar is rather different to monitoring undersea infrastructure. A balance will need to be struck between hydrographic survey and seabed surveillance capability. It is pure speculation but the RSS Sir David Attenborough perhaps could offer the basis for the design and could be built more quickly by Cammell Laird than if a clean sheet design was adopted. With some joined-up thinking, the same platform could be used again to build a replacement for HMS Protector.
Purchasing and converting a merchant ship for MROSS (1) may be the easier part of the project to implement. Uncrewed systems and sensors will be key to the new MROSS capability with the vessel likely acting as a mothership for a fleet of UUVs. New developments make the deployment of a fleet of UUVs to patrol up and down sections of pipelines and cables practical and affordable. Persistent Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (PAUV) that use very little power and can operate independently for several months are maturing and could be part of the solution. These systems need to be controlled and coordinated over a wide area and the data they gather needs to be transmitted and collated. The RN has limited in-house expertise in deploying UUVs on this scale and will likely lean heavily on expertise already accumulated in the civilian energy sector
There are thousands of miles of cables and pipelines as well as hundreds of separate energy installations that need protection. The scale of the task means this activity cannot be undertaken by the Royal Navy alone, one or two ships and some UUVs are a step in the right direction but more resources are needed. Securing this vulnerability will require broader international collaboration between governments, navies and industry. It is also perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that the affluent energy and telecoms corporations that own this strategically important infrastructure make a direct financial contribution to its protection.
Main image: Diving Support Vessel MV Pacific Constructor, Plymouth Sound, April 2021. The first MROSS may look something like this vessel. Pacific Constructor is a subsea multi-purpose vessel most known for involvement in the search for missing airliner MH370 which disappeared 2014. UUVs deployed from the ship searched over 1,300 km2 of seabed in an unsuccessful effort to find the aircraft’s wreckage. Photo: Kevin Kelway.
The first one to be in service in a year or so ? seems a bit quick to me given our history.
Sounds like it will be an off the shelf purchase with a civilian/RFA crew rather than Royal Navy. Not sure how good they will be at protecting cables and gas pipelines. I believe Russia sabotaging their own pipes was more of a warning that if we can sabotage our own yours will be next.
Great news!
Given MROSS was always going to be an indirect replacement for HMS Scott having 2 vessels will allow for deep sea hydrographic survey to continue whilst also having the flexibility to place an emphasis on infrastructure security closer to home.
Completely agree that getting Cammell Laird to refit the first first and build the second seems like an obvious route given their recent experience with RSS Sir David Attenborough.
Hopefully the budget is coming from the (presumably now defunct?) National Flagship nonsense!
In addition, mandating a substantial user’s fee from the corporations benefiting from this increased infrastructure security, does not seem unreasonable.
There will be no increased security. It is an impossibility.
Yes please! HMS RN Boaty McBoatface.
AA
not Jacky McJackface?
Guess who else has a recent purchase of autonomous/remote control underwater vehicles with offensive capability
https://navalpost.com/polish-navy-to-procure-saabs-sarov-autonomous-underwater-vehicle/
We need a one for one replacement for Scott. Far too important for it to be a diluted add on function.
I should imagine there are some secondhand ships out there with dynamic positioning and able to operate ROV that would suit this role. Not sure what surveilling a pipe or cable will do. If something needs to be fixed it will need a specialist vessel. Not sure what we are getting or why.
Yes. The whole MROSS idea has been ‘becalmed’ for a while and is likely this is just another ‘announceable’ for the party conference with no real funding other than ‘from savings’ elsehere
this is quite funny as it asks about the MROSS and national flagship at the same time
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-06-22/debates/F09F7BD9-83A6-4AAC-B048-B3059B0ACA38/RoyalNavyShips
So the MROSS was in concept phase and flagship was in design stage 3 months back and yet here we are !
Yes. Ships have high general or low level utility but need to be built for specific purposes.
It will be another fudge.
I wouldn’t disagree with you. I’m equally sure that a suitably equipped Hunt/Sandown class vessel would be equally capable of conducting surveillance on pipeline/cables should the need arise, after all one of their jobs is sweeping the seabed for threat objects, then eliminating said threats!
No. Think about it. Let us say you have a pipeline a 1000 miles long. Your little ship trolls along at say about 15 knots. It would take 3 days to get to the end. What happens once you have passed to stop the ‘enemy’ engaging in their activity? What could you do if they had done something? These pipelines and cables run everywhere and are a lot longer than a 1000nm. It is an impossible task. There is too much to do in a very difficult environment.
https://infoworldmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/Submarine-cable-map-poster.webp
Route surveillance needs a well mapped route with lots of assets to patrol it.
It’s an impossible task.
This also feeds back into why it is stupid the RN thinking it can ditch hulls for MCM. From what I can tell we are the only leading European state doing this. Italy, Netherlands, and France all have new MCM designs in the pipework. As do powers outside of Europe.
Three different threads here,
If you do want to conduct surveillance on the infrastructure, you don’t really need a new design, drone equipped Hunt/Sandowns could do it.
Agree it’s an impossible task, far too much infrastructure to constantly monitor, especially if you add in the cable network that comes in from the Atlantic to land in the Bristol channel area.
Also agree we need hulls for MCM work, perhaps along the lines of the Bel/Dutch MCM that will carry and control these new vehicles if that’s the way they want to go.
The first link is a graphic of the cable network.
Over on Arrse there was a discussion vis a vis. Why can a MCM not at least detect Subs in the Baltic? The answer was fudged.
Could you provide an answer o/s of national security because I wondered why we could not help the Baltics with MCMs and they feedback on what they, ahem, find.
So have we doubled our saturation diver & clearance diver training?
Huge budget increase needed there.
The lessons from HMS Challenger have hopefully not been forgotten. Rather ironically I think she may still exist though looks and operates very differently today.
Will be great when these vessels are commissioned and fully supported.
Thats a massive supplementary anchor up front ! BTW notice the prominent helicopter deck, even utility civilian vessels ( above a certain size) seem to find them essential. Perhaps their use on naval vessels is essential too, unlike your distaste for them
Flight decks have been essential since the 70s. It is the reason for example that the RN purchased the Castles to supplement the Islands. And why the RN purchased B1 River without the facility I don’t know.
How would protection work? Unless you trail the enemy vessel and disrupt their UUVS in the act of disrupting the Infrastrucutre then I don’t know how you can provide protection. If you are disrupting the disruption then you are going to need a fleet of vessels that can keep up with the enemy. Sounds more likely to be tapping comms or removing taps than protecting pipelines.
I think X’s Graphic above, shows the complexity of the job in hand quite well to be honest with you.
There are two pictures there. One is in webp so didn’t auto display.
It is a ‘uge task.
To be fair though, this has been a worry for decades, the whole how to protect our pipelines, Cables and other under sea/seabed vital arteries……… nothing new but suddenly much of a worry….. Again……
I know it has been a ‘worry’. I am saying it cannot be undertaken at all.
There is now the suggestion that both the NS1 and 2 gas pipelines were taken out by “pipe inspection gadgets (PIGs). The suggestion is that the PIGs were packed with explosives, then driven within the pipe to detonate near the Swedish/Danish coast. Which would mean they wouldn’t have been detected before exploding.
Are they a bit like the Pipeline intervention Gadgets also known as Pigs ?
Should be able to tell when the get a closer look using ROV cameras.
Did they explode ‘outwards’ or inwards
These pipe walls are pretty thick from 3.6cm to 2.4cm in the last section from Sweden to Germany ( as the pressure drops from 220 at Russia to 177 bar- there is no intermediate compressor stations like land pipes have). As well there is then a reinforced concrete coating for outside protection
https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part3.html
How long before an LNG carrier mysteriously blows up at sea?
From what I was recently told the first ship has been procured . It will be RFA manned and will be “grey”. ROV operators etc will be contractors.
RFA crew have already been told that they will be crewing them, crew of around 25-30. Two coming into service, the first one arriving in cammel lairds this year for conversion.
So unless pipelines / cables are in the Baltic, Sea of Azov, or Arctic near Russian coasts, aren’t they, or other “bad actors” going to have to deploy submersibles from surface ships and/or their own submarines (which we know they have done in the past) – so doesn’t that mean what we need to be surveilling for is …. surface ships and submarines?
In other words, isn’t this just a nuanced form of ASW and surface search? So more P8’s, Sea Guardian UAS, XLUUV, perhaps something along the lines of BMT Venari 85, which could be an MCMV or tow a towed array, and deploy UUV’s ? As X has noted, isn’t this plan to deploy 2 specific ships a bit of “pipeline security theatre” ???
All I can think if they are serious is to lay pipes with hydrophones every couple of hundred metres to listen for noises outside the expected ones. But how to deal with a problem when it is discovered quickly I don’t know. An airplane with USV? But how long before that could reach a point of interest? I don’t know. It all sounds so fuzzy. An enemy could come and go within a few hours.
Or, 16 T26 which given we had the 22s and 23s, isn’t asking for much,is it?
Got told the first new vessel was arriving in cammel laird for conversion in early October and this arrived this morning, quite possibly the new ship in question.
It would seem an odd choice if it is. She’s an AHTS, designed and built for moving rigs and other big infrastructure around, rather than sea-bed ops.
ALP Forward (alpmaritime.com)
I’d have expected an MROSS to be something like a DSV or ROV support ship that was set up to do sea bed ops.
I suspect she’s there to take the other AFSH to Egypt (the tug for the first one belonged to the same company and is of the same class).
ALP Forward has arrived tow ENS Abu Simbel (Ex-RFA Fort Rosalie) to Egypt. The two ex-Forts will be employed as accommodation and training ships. There is a problem with spares for their engines – it is possible one may be canabilsed to provide spares for the other so at least one can be made seaworthy, but the Egyptian navy’s intentions are unclear. (ALP Winger towed ENS Luxor, ex-RFA Fort Austin, out of Birkehnead yesterday).
Thanks – accommodation and training ships explains a lot. Couldn’t fathom why the Egyptians bought two large solid support ships when they don’t really have a need to sustain task groups at sea for long.
Accommodation on board but tied to the wharf would seem to be the most expensive way to arrange a ‘barracks’. Normally it might be for a ship in refit where the crew are needed close by.
I was reading something recently on the background to the T23 development and the helicopter maintenance was proposed to be done on these RFA who would only hot deck for short periods to the Frigate. That wasnt how it worked out
Think less “barracks” more “training ship” (ie onboard living environment, maintaining and checking live systems). Plus all those cargo holds will make for decent training spaces and workships.
Not sure what your point wrt T23 is. Lots of assumed concepts fell victim to post-cold war reality. Not least 28 days out and back with civvy support contractors to clean ship.
Is it not practical to place sensors every few Km along pipeline /cable that would be capable of sending data to a central/mobile monitoring centre?
Interesting idea re the hydrophones etc.
Civi companies pay for them and NATO collect the data. SOSUS galore with that amount of int and a huge headache for our Commie friends.
MOD have purchased two OSV from two separate companies. One is the vessel in the picture. Both to be operated by the RFA.