The RN has begun pre-procurement engagement with industry for the MRSS project and has offered some initial insights into its requirements. Here we look at the outline specification and the significant challenges that must be overcome to deliver these ships.
Pace and procurement
MRSS is now in the concept phase, with plans for ‘up to’ 6 ships, but an initial commitment to building 3. This is the highest priority programme within the RN new entry shipbuilding pipeline, although the Future Air Defence Dominance System (FADS) and its supporting Type 83 destroyer programme is running close behind. There is some synergy between the two projects that will take a ’systems of systems approach’ to varying degrees. As part of the new Integrated Procurement Model which says the MoD must be more open with industry, the MRSS team have provided some limited insight into their thinking before the full set of user requirements has been agreed upon.
The RN Develop Directorate is currently running MRSS but will soon move the project to the Acquisition Directorate and be the responsibility of Brigadier Chris Haw, SRO of the Commando Force Transformation Programme. This is significant because in amphibious ship design, there is inevitably a healthy tension between the naval and ship engineering requirements and the needs of the Royal Marines as the primary users and ‘main armament’ of the platform.
What is immediately obvious is that the stated timeline for the programme is extremely tight. If the Bay class are not extended in service, then the MRSS first-of-class needs to enter service in 2031. Essentially this would mean there are about 4 years to develop the design and about 3 years to build the first ship. If the Fleet Solid Support ship project is be taken as a vaguely similar example, FSS was approved in SDSR 2015, went on contract in 2023 and the first ship should be delivered in 2028, assuming construction proceeds without any problems. While not impossible, MRSS is asking a lot from industry, not just in complex design requirements but relatively rapid construction of large semi-complex warships. It is therefore likely that this project will ‘move to the right’ by at least a couple of years.
As we previously revealed, hoped-for cooperation with the Netherlands Navy to build a joint amphibious platform has essentially been abandoned. Project CATHERINA was established to determine the level of commonality between the MRSS and NL LPX (now ATS) programmes. A series of working groups and wargames showed that national concepts of operations and budgets were not sufficiently aligned. Two interoperable but distinct classes of ships are needed to meet the separate needs of both nations. Joint work will continue to ensure interoperability and seek procurement and support efficiencies in a limited number of common elements.
MRSS-approximate-scheduleDesign drivers
MRSS will operate worldwide and be persistently deployed as part of Littoral Response Groups (LRG). They may be aggregated to form a larger Littoral Strike Group (LSG) or to be combined with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) to form an Expeditionary Strike Force. Importantly the RN says the ship must have sufficient self-defence capability to operate independently in a medium-threat environment, although they would be protected by other assets in high-threat areas. The dividing line between threat levels is increasingly blurred and raised as non-state actors and sub-peer adversaries are now able to develop or obtain much more potent weapons. It is plain that the threats to surface ships are evolving fast, particularly in the littorals and survival will demand much-improved combat capability over existing RN amphibious ships.
The key role of MRSS will be to host, launch and recover Commando Force (and special forces) personnel, surface, aviation, vehicles and equipment for full-scale Littoral Strike amphibious operations. Just what this looks like is still somewhat sketchy although can be found outlined in the Commando Force operating model. The ships will also need to be able to sustain forces once they are ashore with logistic support.
MRSS will be an afloat command platform with the C3 facilities able to host staff up to the size of a NATO two-star headquarters. It will also provide a maritime-deployed hospital care facility to replace the PCRS capabilities of RFA Argus. This will be Role 2 Enhanced medical capability and when aggregated with another MRSS to form the LSG, this will be a Role 3 medical capability. (In simple terms, R2E provides advanced medical support including urgent surgery, basic inpatient care, and resuscitative care. R3 provides comprehensive medical support including extensive surgery and prolonged inpatient care.)
As an important caveat, the RN does not expect the C3 and medical capabilities to be carried on the ship concurrently and MRSS will designed to be modular so medical facilities can be swapped out for command facilities. This will most likely be achieved through PODS / containerised solutions inserted into a large internal deck area with a digital backbone, appropriate space, weight and power available. Loosely described as “a Type 26 frigate mission bay on steroids”, vehicle decks or other spaces will also be needed to host expeditionary off-board autonomous systems. These systems will also need facilities for launching, recovery and storage which implies a flight deck, hangar and possibly a well deck.
The need for MRSS to be persistently deployed, likely operating from overseas bases will impact the through-life support solution for these ships. The RN and its industry partners have to weigh up design choices and implications of building ships that may have higher initial costs to increase their reliability and simplify maintenance in service.
Fill in the blanks
The specification outlined above is very basic and the crucial elements that will define what MRSS looks like are still missing. The RN has been well aware of the need to develop the next generation of amphibious ships and must have begun work on this project in some form years ago. Although leaving it to the last minute allows the very latest developments in naval warfare to be taken into account, it is difficult to understand why the requirement is still so ill-defined when construction really needs to begin in about 4 years.
The key user requirements that need to be set are, the number of troops to be carried and the main method for insertion ashore to be defined, whether this is aviation-centric, conventional landing craft or light Commando Insertion Craft. Within the ORBAT there is a myriad of details to work through such as the number, size and weight of weapons, vehicles and other equipment to be carried. The volume of food, fuel and ammunition expected to be delivered for follow-on support (the original main intended role of the Bay-class) needs to be decided on. An early decision will have to be made about whether to have a well dock, together with the size and capacity of the flight deck and hangar.
At present it is also unclear whether these will be RN or RFA (civilian) crewed vessels. Either way, they will need to feature much greater automation than their predecessors to keep the manning requirement as low as possible. The struggles to find sailors has, at least temporarily, rendered both LPDs and a substantial part of the RFA fleet inactive.
A realistic budget is needed otherwise MRSS will end up being endlessly de-scoped resulting in a compromised vessel. Cdr Alex Allen, MRSS Programme director hinted at the complex trade-offs to be made, saying “it’s a multi-role ship, which means I’ve got multiple customers and multiple experts suggesting what the ships should and shouldn’t do”. As a ‘jack of all trades’ there will be a difficult balancing act to prioritise these roles while keeping within an as-yet-unknown budget that is unlikely to stretch far enough. The requirement for greater self-defence capability alone has the potential to drive complexity and cost unless a very innovative approach is taken.
Other considerations
Although it may be easier to meet all the requirements with a large vessel following the trend in naval architecture generally, infrastructure considerations could dictate maximum size. Assuming MRSS will be nominally based in Devonport then the dimensions of the largest dry dock available (number 8) might be a limiting factor. This would restrict the ship to a maximum of about 190m in length and 35m beam. Other dry docks are available in the UK (and worldwide) but the larger the vessel becomes, the fewer the options.
There are also just three shipyards in the UK potentially capable of building large ships from scratch or consolidating blocks from other shipbuilders. Babcock, Rosyth have a large dry dock but this is earmarked for aircraft carrier maintenance for the next decade at least. Cammell Laird, Birkenhead has a large dry dock but limited recent large shipbuilding experience and no large gantry crane. Harland & Wolff, Belfast has the space to cope with MRSS simultaneously with FSS, if not yet having generated a large enough workforce and is currently experiencing financial challenges.
Whichever shipyards and naval architects are involved, the ability to construct MRSS is far from assured, especially given the taut timetable. There seems to have been limited thinking about this aspect of the project until now with Cdr Allen admitting the team still needs to “engage with our industry partners to understand those [capacity] challenges”. As it stands, MRSS will be procured by the MoD’s default process of holding a competition. This may be flawed, given the size of the project and the concurrent work on FSS, Type 26, (Type 32?) and Type 83. Instead, a single industrial alliance similar to the consortium that built the aircraft carriers might be a sensible approach. This could take an overview of the whole UK shipbuilding pipeline and ensure work is shared out evenly to maximise capacity and efficiency. A contractual commitment to build all six ships from the start would also drive down costs and promote industrial stability.
It’s about time the government invested (with industry) in a greenfield shipyard able to build large ships efficiently.
Yes I agree, also HS2 phase 2, Euston extension, Heathrow 3rd runway, Sizewell nuclear plant C, West Midlands: Integrated Rail Plan, Lower Thames Crossing Project, Hornsea wind farm….. plus 2.5% defense spending.
And where is the money to pay for all of this coming from?
As always, the Russians will pay for the submarines, fighter jets, and tanks, lol,
Tax evasion and tax avoidance recoveries will go a long way to fund the MoD
Shell and BP paid zero tax on North Sea gas and oil for three years
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/30/shell-and-bp-paid-zero-tax-on-north-sea-gas-and-oil-for-three-years
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/special-report-how-oil-majors-shift-billions-in-profits-to-island-tax-havens-idUSKBN28J1IH/
It’s astounding that the navy hasn’t locked down some of these major points yet. It sounds like they don’t even really know what the ships are for because once they work that out, most of the requirements are fairly obvious.
Until the results of the defence review are in the RN/RM have no idea what HMG what the ships to do and what budget is available and when it’s available. Given a change in government has looked likely for a couple of years I can see why the RN has been reluctant to tie things down.
Don’t we think future commando force was originally simply cover for making cuts to the Commando Brigade? Bit like the sophistry of elevating certain supporting units to “Commando” status? Now Russia is our immediate threat some reversing is required.
The direction of travel in other navies has been through deck ships carrying significant helicopters. I this whole concept is a cut 3 ships to replace 6: Argus, Albion Class, Bay Class.
We actually should be having 2 LPHD similar to the French or Spanish/Australian design capable of Lillipadding F35B and 4 improved Bay Class with hangers. One of the latter could have the modular hospital facilities embarked. Both of the former could have the command facilities.
All are going to need air defence capability.
We aren’t getting a split class because we can’t afford it, we don’t have significantly more budget than other comparable navies so if we want to maintain a 5-6 ship fleet no we can’t afford something like an LHD. I’d argue we should accept reduced numbers if we want increased capability in the case of amphibious forces.
The government spends £1.2 TRILLION a year. We can afford it
THIS ^^^^^^^^^
The benefits bills for London is larger than the defence budget. A London whose population is only one third British. As you say it isn’t a question of afford it is more a question of where the government chooses to waste our taxes.
Incorrect, as 59% of Londoners were born in the U.K. and are therefore British by birth.
Of the 41% that chose the U.K. over other countries to move to, a large proportion have chosen to take up British citizenship.
https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/geography-population/#:~:text=41%25%20of%20Londoners%20were%20born,by%20Central%20London%20(44%25).
Your claim that only a third of London’s population is British is clearly wrong and inflammatory…
However only 36% of Londoners are ethnically ‘White British’.
I hope you aren’t implying you have to be white to be British, because that would be racist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London
No it wouldn’t be racist. What you are saying is that anybody can have a UK & NI passport. That is totally different issue to race.
You don’t understand the words or terms you are using do you? It is nice to have it confirmed that you are not just ignorant about naval matters but ignorant and stupid about other fields and spheres too.
You are a nasty little biggot.
So you are a racist, in addition to being a self-admitted misogynist and conspiracy theorist! Well at least that’s visible to everyone now.
Anybody who holds a U.K. & NI passport is British, it states so clearly inside. But you obviously only want white people to have them. That is racist, to discriminate against people based on race.
You’re a man out of time, you would have fitted in well in 1930’s Germany.
Few if any of that larger percentage of non White British choose to serve to protect the UK and what they cherish (FREEDOM).
Really? Ethnic minorities make up 3% of officers and 11.5% of other ranks in the U.K. Armed Forces. So are you just ignorant of the facts or are you deliberately pushing a racist conspiracy theory?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-october-2022/uk-armed-forces-biannual-diversity-statistics-1-october-2022#:~:text=At%201%20October%202022%2C%20ethnic,in%20the%20Future%20Reserves%202020.
Just for clarity, being born in Britain does not make you British by birth.
Uk is not like USA or Ireland where being born in the country gives citizenship. UK citizenship will flow through citizenship of the parents as a primary route, but can later be obtained via other routes such as time in UK, family links etc
A child will acquire British citizenship by birth if they are born in the UK to a parent who is
either a British citizen
or who has a form of settled status, such as indefinite leave to remain, at the time of the birth
1/3 British….define British please?
It isn’t just l about how much mass can be delivered across a beach, but how quickly that ‘mass’ can reach the point of need.
USN amphibs are designed to make 500 mile leaps per day. The US distributed ARGs so that nowhere on the globe is only a few days at best out of reach. To do this their amphibs haveto be fast so require complex so expensive propulsion systems. To do this properly there is more then to the answer than dropping a couple of donks into a hull and pushing them stupidly hard. Amphibs may spend their days trolling along at 15kts most of the time, but these ships are purchased to deal with those events that happen 1% of the time. Bays are lorries, Albions are assault ships. Just because the former has a dock and is big and grey doesn’t make it the same as the latter. This is ‘Abbot is a tank’ level of misunderstanding; Abbot having a big gun and tracks doesn’t make it a tank. Amphibious requires the movement of troops by sea, but not every instance of movement of troops by sea is amphibious warfare.
Using smaller boats and aircraft to reach out might mean the hull doesn’t have to be quite there. But smaller boats would have to be quicker than 24kts and probably larger than what is proposed too. Before long you are looking at expensive and weird and costly specialist hulls. That leaves helicopters and I would suggest the new ship probably needs to be able to launch 8 transports in one wave. You never overload a helicopter you always spread the lift just in case something happens. One is none, two is one etc. Note I said transports because there will probably be a need to launch smaller rotor craft in support.
There is more to this than a couple of rubber dinghies paddling away from the well deck. There are special forces operations and there are raids. The latter depends on the former. We need to think in terms of Operation Claymore more than Operation Frankton. WW2 offers the best examples of the range of these operations.
I would do away with these Littoral Strike Groups. I would build 3 preferably 4 large fast LPD’s. And then have one of those follow the duty carrier which can then be a base for the EMF’s aviation assets. In terms of airframes we can just about manage to mirror a USN/USMC MEU ARG. And replace the Bays with another class of large simple dock ships (about 28,000 tonnes).
What if it’s thought that significant scale opposed landings are no longer possible? If that’s the case then the ship needs to be optimised for either delivery of troops/equipment just outside the combat zone or raiding at some scale. Until that choice is made you can’t pick a ship concept.
Who said anything about opposed landings? Do you mean like D-Day or Inchon because I didn’t. The RM has never ever really been in the ‘opposed landings’ game. Well apart from they are going to fight somebody ashore……. The landings in San Carlos were not an opposed landing.
If all this is about the RN delivering a few dinghies of marines ashore then there is no for a specific class of ship as any available tub will do. Royal Marines are specialist infantry not special forces.
Until that choice is made you can’t pick a ship concept.
You could have made that statement in a stand alone comment. Why didn’t you? The article itself is speculative. All I did was put my thoughts down in a comment. Why address me and not the comment? If you have nothing to say apart from poke at somebody who took time to say something why say anything at all?
Al Faw and Umm Qasr Iraq 2003 with 40 Comm and 42 Comm plus USMC units
https://www.forces.net/services/royal-marines/royal-marines-one-finest-moments-recent-history-officially-recognised
I explained down below Captain Clown……..
No you didnt . Its much better to see your picture post cards from Chiantishire
Those who were in ships and landing craft at San Carlos would be surprised to hear they ‘werent opposed’ with bombs flying.
Same goes for Al Faw landings- its a feature to find the least resistance not a bug as it was no Atlantic Wall assault but that too varied massively as the numbers and pictures from Utah beach show.
Even on D day 1000 DC3s carried paratrooper and gliders well behind the beaches- some were ‘opposed’ many werent- so that was ‘no Crete’ either.
No doubt ‘back in your day’ the wall photos are from Crete, Omaha, Arnhem ,Suez
Fact: landings at San Carlos were opposed.
A well-informed opinion; I like it.
Thank you.
The Wasp, America and San Antonio Class all top out at 22 knots…
Albion and Bay Class are not far off that….neither was Ocean.
Not much difference there in reality.
In both navies the logistics ships that follow, the Point Class and various USNS vessels are actually faster than the Amphibs…
You are confusing ‘cruising speed’ and ‘top speed’. Albions and Bays top out at about 18kts. Wasps and San Antonio have top speeds around 25kts. Their endurance speed is 22kts. As I said USN ARG’S ARE DESIGNED TO DO 500 PLUS MILES PER DAY.
The Point class’ role is too move Army equipment about the globe. It isn’t an amphibious warfare ship. As I said AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE INVOLVES THE MOVEMENT OF SOLDIERS (AND THEIR EQUIPMENT) BY SEA, BUT NOT EVERY INSTANCE OF MOVEMENT OF SOLDIERS (AND THEIR EQUIPMENT) BY SEA IS AN EXAMPLE OF AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE.
I bet the Chinese would build some of these for us at a good price………
25,000 tons with a top speed of 25kts.
800 troops.
4 LCAC’s
4 large helicopters
10,000nm at 18kts.
If they can build something like that why can’t the UK?
Are you getting China confused as some 3rd world nation or as the superpower they actually are. They have a practically limitless budget
No I am just talking about hypothetical specifications for a new class of RN ship.
It is you toddling off down paths of discussion that are only going on in your head.
“When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” – Confucius
Look up for a change eh? Stop seizing on minor details.
You’re not just talking about the UK seeing as “if they can build something like that why can’t the UK”
Because we don’t have their resources, “Wise man”
Yet we have just built two 70,000 tonne carriers.
We can build nuclear submarines.
We are supposedly about to build some new amphibians.
Bore off troll.
Of course UK have resources. 38M people in 1939, 55M in 2016…
But it prefers to spend it in “Net Zero” “Climate Change” “Equality/Equity whatever is the Neo-Marxist parlance de jour for you must all be dependent on State and think alike… includes the infinite number of Quangos .
In 1939 the tax rate was below 25%, now it is 37% or more.
UK spends 12.9% of GDP on social benefits while US is around 19% – according to OECD
The child benefit only cuts out at £50-60,000 – and costs £12.6 bill, are you saying never claimed this ‘state benefit’? LOL
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63129705
The culture warriors will fight for their benefits of course
Net Zero is the international aim to attempt to reduce the impact of man-made climate change. Climate change is a scientifically validated phenomenon, it’s not a Neo-Marxist nor a Neo-Fascist ideology.
Dismissing science as a political dogma is on par with believing the earth is flat.
Climate change is valid for what has occurred. Its their predictions that are in the margins of error ( their past ones have been mostly wrong too) but for some future climate has become a theology with its own priesthood
Economics is technically valid too , but dont have go with all the fringe beliefs and many of the core ones
Originally one of the ‘attractions’ of marxism was that they said it too was ‘scientific and inevitable’- that was the 1920-50s of course . China has had great success with Leninist-Party-State system and the wealthiest western countries are a mixed public -private economies
EDITORIAL GUIDELINES
Focus on the Royal Navy or discuss the challenges and issues it faces
Relate to the current or future Royal Navy.
“The Royal Navy is considering introducing compulsory climate change courses for all sailors, The Telegraph can reveal.”
But your main point is correct
You don’t think climate-change is going to be a challenge to the Royal Navy?!?!
Greater and more frequent clear-air turbulence affecting flying, more violent and frequent hurricanes and typhoons, sea-level rises, greater acidity of sea-water, greater migration and political instability from scarcity of resources and areas in the tropics becoming uninhabitable, etc, etc…
The predictions from climate scientists have thus far proven to be too conservative, with actual change far worse than predicted. In part this has been due to incomplete or data reliability. For example, analysis of ancient sponge has shown that man-made climate change probably started a decade before what was identified from ice-core samples, which obviously throws out modelling and future predictions. The bad news is that what we are experiencing is worse than what the models predict we should be experiencing.
Climate-change due to man’s use of fossil fuels is not a prediction, is a fact, it’s happening now.
Funny enough all the conspiracy nutters claiming Corvid was caused by 5G or than a de-worming tablet could cure it all claimed to have science backing them up. Just because someone bandies around the claim of scientific proof doesn’t proof anything, nor does it discredit real science.
It’s surely not too hard to differentiate between peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and papers that win Nobel Prizes from wild claims in political pamphlets or YouTube videos posted by those with no relevant credentials?? Stop being so disingenuous.
Hahah! You cannot find the difference between Science and Scientism.
Explain the 1540 European drought. You or any scientist.
Tell me the cloud cover in 1680?
Explain the several heavy storms in Northern Sea in medieval ages?
.
You clearly can’t tell the difference between weather and climate by asking such a dumb question.
They certainly have superpower levels of state debt…
The UK can. BMT has some really good designs to work off, and most likely will in any competition. The question is what capability is expected from each hull? 6 ships would allow 2-3 to be available at all times, 4 in a surge.
Yes we can. 🙂
We can also see that with the growth in size all types of Warships we now need significant investment in the Royal Dockyards to provide facilities for new larger vessels.
The Royal Dockyards built most of our warships before steam and steel. With the private sector much depleted in the UK is this something to revisit?
No.
You do know the “royal Dockyards” no longer exist right?
… Of course one does; the oldest and most famous of them: HMNB Portsmouth.
Hmm. Remind me again what the NB stands for in that?
Remind me again what does HM stand for in that?
Don’t be a tiresome pedant. We have enough of those here without giving them help.
If he thinks the government should get back in to shipbuilding he is entitled to that opinion.
North Britain?
“Not Boffin” ?
Absolutely, significant difference between a Naval Base and a Naval Dockyard.
The whole overhaul side is now known as Fleet Maintenance and Repair organisation, FMRO and at Portsmouth is run by BAE Maritime services ( with KBR)
The Royal Dockyards lives on
MRSS must be built AFTER FSSS and T31. There is not enough shipbuilding labors, I understand? This means, Bays must be modernized to some extent, which is quite easy.
Also notable is, there is almost no big-vessels to build AFTER FSSS and MRSS. This means that if UK hurry on the MRSS build program, the shipyards will be bankrupt because of lack of order, as soon as the last MRSS be commissioned.
In short, there are plenty of merits to delay MRSS build.
With Albion and Bulwark having spent so long laid up surely the life of both could be extended out (or at least one, if they continue to rotate them). By spreading them out we could buy 3-4 Bay replacements and then perhaps a couple of proper LPH for the same annual run rate costs
a ‘defensive armament’ fit for medium threat areas would probably need to be thought of quite differently now I’d think. Drones (above, on and below the surface) are much bigger threats now. So are anti ship and even shorter range ballistic missiles.
The type 31 weapon fit was clearly thought through to face these types of threats. If these ships are to operate away from even a type 31, then they may need to be more weaponised than might first be thought perhaps?
I mean from what I’ve read I’ve been thinking they want camm
Agreed. And if you chuck on a 57mm it can offer a defensive role and also a bit of NGS. Maybe also Mk41VLS – gives Camm, long range (or counter ballistic) air, could carry the proposed anti sub stand off weapon and of course gives land strike options.
The trouble is you are now building a warship with associates sensors and CCC needs and we will only get two of them, ten years late
Maybe. Or the 3 that are guaranteed now are all well get, but with the capabilities we want. But our current amphib fleet certainly originates from a time where we had more budget, 6 may be unrealistic
Sounds rather like T32 to me?
Agreed. If the Houthi rebels are a medium threat (not minor, not a hostile state) then defence against air and sea drones, anti-ship missiles, primitive ballistic missiles are all needed.
Not with only 12 CAMM missiles. T31 was made for past wars.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-31-frigates-to-be-fitted-with-mk41-vertical-launch-system/
Welcome to
20242023NZ should get in on this project, the BMT and BAE concepts could be a good replacement for Canterbury, the time frame fits as well.
It would also be a good idea for RNZN to get in on Type 31 or Type 32.
Singapore’s multi use frigate/landing craft Fearless MRSS type makes more sense
https://www.navylookout.com/steller-systems-unveil-fearless-multi-role-support-ship-concept/
That ship doesn’t have anywhere near the right amount of internal volume for ops like disaster relief in the Pacific Islands to replace Canterbury.
Its meant to replace their frigates and logistics ships. More ships of similar kind are better
The NL detail for Singapores Fearless say
‘The 170m long vessel is approximately 15,500 tonnes at full load and has a capacity of around 800 lane-metres for vehicles, containers or off-board systems. (This compares with 1,200 LnM of the Bay class auxiliaries and 500 LnM for the Albion class LPDs).”
While Canterbury is more like 300 lane meters ??
I think people are missing a few points. Having a couple of company size Commando raiding units are supposed to achieve what exactly? Who are they supposed to be raiding? Somali pirates? Almost any one of serious enemies would just laugh this size of force off – no insult to the commandos but they would be outnumbered 1000 to 1.
If you are looking at something more substantial, then it’s army and they get a vote too. Unless they limit themselves to helicopter forces (unlikely) they are going to want to land something heavier and that means well docks or at the very minimum Mexeflotes (very slow).
For disaster relief, how do you land bulldozers and heavy trucks? How do you evacuate British citizens? If you don’t do disaster relief or accommodate the army, why would you need a large hospital facility? Do you need a 2 star HQ to manage a single company?
I think people need to take a long hard look at what we actually used LPH, LPD, Bays and Points for in practice.
Interestingly out of the headlines the LCU’s have recently had some money spent on them and one them is on route to the Med as part of contingency plans for U.K. Nationals evacuation. Whilst the current competition for an LCVP replacement may find an innovative solution to moving 35 personnel from ship to shore you still need heavy lift for many reasons so unless an equivalent can be found we will still need these types of craft and a sizeable well deck.
Raiding is just a part of what amphibious shipping can provide and what we require.
Nice article. The bays are good ships I can see a service life extension of a few years on the cards
Perhaps the penny has finally dropped that it’s worth spending a little more on robust defensive systems rather than saving paltry sums and needing a frigate or destroyer to accompany amphibs into any sort of threat environment.
Sea Ceptor and 40mm mounts should be standard for whatever MRSS becomes.
Two examples of raids.
The first one involve 3Cdo BRF so a couple of troops worth plus others being landed from 2 Chinooks.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-troops-launch-helicopter-raid-on-taliban-ied-factory
The second one, Operation Diesel, involved 700 Marines and elements from 1PWRR.
https://www.royalmarineshistory.com/post/2020/02/09/operation-diesel
Note the number of helicopters involved. And armoured vehicles to secure landing sites for helicopters.
Consider the USMC think a 1300 light battle group, a MEU, is the smallest possible formation for (regular) infantry to do anything useful ashore.
And neither of those was launched from the sea.
Bless.
Al Faw peninsula Iraq 2003
40 and 42 Cdo’s
SEAL Teams 3, 8 and 10
About 4000-ish personnel if I remember rightly.
2 LPH’s
4 Frigates for NGS
1 Cruiser
4 MCM
And so on……………
Did the force go ashore, conduct it’s mission and then return to the sea for tea and medals? Or did it land and occupy the ground? Was it a raid? No………..
Your earlier question was what I answered.
‘The RM has never ever really been in the ‘opposed landings’ game. Well apart from they are going to fight somebody ashore……. The landings in San Carlos were not an opposed landing”
So this was an opposed landing and more recent than South Atlantic
Apparently the USMC 15th MEU ‘ drove across the border’ from Kuwait
The RM is still training for their raiding
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2023/june/15/230615-royal-marines-raid-northern-poland-and-call-in-rocket-strikes
Opposed beach landing…….
Manoeuvre from the sea…….
You have been watching saving private Ryan too much.
Check the landing at Utah, 23,000 came across the sand , only 197 killed or wounded
Doesnt change the fact Al Faw was an opposed landing 20 years ago … just get over it
Who was opposing?
Oh, I get it, the legendary sock puppets, lol.
And what film do you watch? The Empire strikes back?
You are just better off letting him go off on his own down his own rabbit holes. You never get any sense out of him.
Lord High Admiral doesnt like it when hes contradicted with evidence. I wonder where you learned that ?
.webp
The truth is out there
I welcome it when I have been shown to made an error as Im of the life long learner school.
Below is the latest ‘learnings’ for some – not me as I predicted it
As Not a Boffin will tell you they trialled this years back and it didn’t work because physics. What is driving is the USN don’t have enough VLS cells. Numbers have been falling for a variety of reasons. The trial will fail again.
They are trying again with new arrangements – from first principles hence the loops around the crane mast and the second jackstay. But tests while underway havent happened yet- cant be harder than F-35?
The extra capability of ESSM plus its quad packing – now out to 25nm at Mach 4 ( optimal) – means the SM-2/SM-6 family can be saved for much further out and the -6 has more capability as well with its active seeker nose cone.
The experts differ
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2023/march/20/230320-al-faw-becomes-corps-memorable-date
“The struggles to find sailors has, at least temporarily, rendered both LPDs and a substantial part of the RFA fleet inactive.” Is this line a joke? When I was trying to join the Royal Navy last year as enlisted, I was told by my recruiter that he had some lads on his roster that had been waiting 3 years for a start date to get sent down to training! The problem with Navy and armed forces over the last 5-10 years hasn’t so much been the lack of manpower, it has been a fundamental breakdown in the recruiting departments for each individual branch of service. The fact that they outsourced their recruitment to a civilian organisation (Capita) which failed to meet recruitment quotas by a figure of 5000 soldiers a year and cost the government £10 billion to fix a recruitment system that also cost them £10 billion to develop, only to revert it back to the system that existed prior to this!
Fascinating reading from Jan 2019. and the second link from 2024
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/12194/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
Oral evidence: Capita’s Contracts with the Ministry of Defence
For most it will be TLDR this is a flavour of the questions and answers in just Q2
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14154/html/
Even when the Army reduced their targets by 20% , they still failed to meet them after the 2018 ‘reset’
The Navy dont use Capita – its in the transcript for 2024 near the end- they are ‘in house’ but they do use Serco for the RFA
The RN system is definitely broken and I’m sure involves Capita. The RFA only involved Servo for a few people to augment and help run the Stirling castle and Proteus. The rest of the actual RFA uses the same system as the navy overall.
Capita say they arent doing the RN!
Reading most of the Commons hearing- which revolved around Capita-Army only, theres certain category’s where the recruiting targets are easily met. They said Paras, Combat medical techs, vehicle mechanics and some others. So those will have high standards while other specialisations a bit lower
I imagine similar for RN who use their own recruiting. But even then the training are done in batches with fixed start times.
We are at the start of the most important Defence Review in Decades. One of the most urgent priorities has to be to get recruitment and conditions sorted, to attract the people needed to crew the new ships being built. But there also needs to be some serious investment in shipyards and engineering to enable their construction. Glasgow is concentrating on Type 26 and then Type 83, Rosyth is building the Type 31 and 32 Frigates. Harland and Wolff are soon to begin construction of three FSS Ships. If there are financial issues, get them sorted quickly because H&W is strategically vital. But what about Cammell Laird, A&P Tyne and H&W Appledore? Those three yards could combine to build sections of the MRSS Ships in a similar vein to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, but where could they be assembled if H&W Belfast is over capacity? A&P Falmouth can take ships well above the size of the MRSS and they already have a wealth of experience in Naval work as well so could they be considered for final assembly of these Ships if the Dry Dock at Rosyth is unavailable?
I wonder if BAE Barrow might make a pitch, they seem to be planning a second production yard based around Ramsden Dock and they could spool up with these before switching to full AUKUS assembly once the fist in class is significantly progressed.
Bays will get extended.
A lot of work has already been done on identifying areas of the Hull and mandatory inspection equipment that need work on to ensure that Lloyd’s and UKMCA inspections are passed.
It’s worth noting that the Bays are at the point now where, due to their age and their class designation under UKMCA and Lloyds rules, they need to conduct dry dockings at a more regular interval. Previously an in-water inspection and a drydocking during a 5–6 year period would do them. Now its dockings only. No in water inspections
It’s not a big issue. Civvy yards can conduct a docking, hull blast/repaint (if required), underwater valve inspections, propulsor checks, pretty quickly when they are needed. Look at the LRG that was visiting Singers. Drydocked and out very quickly.
Regarding MRRS systems for a medium threat area.
If they are fitted for a 2 * Command and control that’s going to be reminiscent of an LPD ops room. Lots of radio links(so lots of upper deck area for aerials and a large MCO), computer systems tied into Secret networks, int cell, strike cell and satcom connectivity. (Cell being a standalone group to direct int and strike elements from external assets such as TLAM or FAA/RAF…it isnt VLS!). Tucked away in the corner will be a few Fighty consoles and systems for the ship such as EW, surface, and air plot, PWO and Self-defence. Thats it. Phalanx/40mm or such like for self-defence. Look at what weapons the LPDs had/have, and the Bays have now…it will be at the same level.
Also look at the USN Amphibs. They sometimes have RAM and/or some Phalanx and 30mm mounts, Nothing more.
They certainly are not going to be doing STOM as an LPD can but as standalone assets they should be more capable than a Bay.
A large 2 spot flight deck and a Hangar are essential for probably 3 Merlin sized helos inside and rotating anything on deck into the hangar as required for maintenance. Thats how San Antonios do it. Osprey, Cobra and Seahawks all take turns in the hangar for maint and spend the rest of the times ranged on deck.( if the hangar door works…but that’s a different story!)
A well deck. Plenty of storage space below decks in linear meters for equipment. Decent magazine capacity. Embarked forces accom and the supporting infrastructure. So big RO plants with V large FW tanks. Large sewage system, big Galley and the associated fridge, freezers, and storerooms for food. If you RN crew it it then you don’t need as many single berth cabins as the RFA have so that helps.
As I have said many times now there is no reason why the flight deck cannot extend the ful length of the hull.
The issue with Ocean was what it could carry. Most space was taken up by the hangar. the actual vehicle space was limited to Bvs and jackals. Adding the airwing reduces Rm carrying capacity.
Difficult balancing act to manage.
That’s the Giuseppe Garibald not Ocean. I was talking about the size of the flight deck. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A BIG FLIGHT DECK IT DOESN’T MEAN THE ALMIGHTY HAS DEIGNED THAT THE SHIP ACTUALLY HAS TO CARRY A CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF HELICOPTERS.
The Royal Marines will be only 4×4 and band wagons anyway. There is always compromise. Speed is an issue. You can’t limit vehicle to shore movement to boat / landing craft. These ships are supposedly be sized around a company; I don’t understand that I am just saying what I understand. So that means what 4 Merlin to lift one company? Or 12 vehicles to move one company. So 4 LCU to move 12 vehicles ashore slowly. It is always a compromise. A balancing act.
A very good post but if the vessels are 20,000t plus I do tend to think we are close to having a debate that was had in the late 60’s when the Navy reinvented the aircraft carrier (subtly called a though deck cruiser as you know). All those conventional cruiser forward and hangar aft designs, Italian, French, Russian and our own Tiger class lash up where all eventually replaced by carriers.
Whilst that was to accommodate ASW helos I cannot help think given the move to drones and there increasing importance that an austere LHD of 22,000t would be the right option.
For me the question is whether a dock is necessary. Can’t we just use davits for the assault boats? CB90 or Jurmo class say aren’t that large.
If the only role was to undertake raids for our amphibious forces then the omission of a well deck would be ok but given that is only a part of what they will be required to do then I personally think the well deck is essential and offers much greater flexibility.
Yes. I think the problem is the RN want to much from one class.
I tend to agree and would prefer a mix of 2 LHDs and 4 Bays MK2s. The latter with hangars.
The reason why the Bays had no hangars was to give space for containers. The Albions lost their hangars as a cost cutting measure. They quite literally rubbed one whole deck from the plans. That is why they look so squat.
During a Taurus deployment to the far east we took 539 along on Bulwark for a jolly with their ORCs. Good bunch of lads by the way. Royal used them in Brunei to good effect using an LCU as the mothership. The LCU carried spares, fuel, ammo, water food etc on deck for the ORCs to use. It extended the deplorability of the ORCs by days. A similar tactic during raiding, using LCUs as fwd basing supply stations would open hundreds if not thousands of miles of extra coast to the raiding threat putting a far greater strain on an enemy’s ability to counter a raid.
Getting the ORCs into the water in the dock was entertaining. We had to use a trailer to launch them down the beach. Very crowded with little room to manoeuvre the CASE tractor which was moving the trailer.
An extension to the Mez deck and a new crane system rail extension over the dock was proposed (Me!). The mez deck was done but unsure if the crane extension was. With the extension you could then lift the boat on the stbd side of the vehicle deck directly into the flooded well deck. It would also mean you could move material from the mez deck aft directly to anything in the dock.
Ewen Southby-Tailyour has written a lot on using LCU for raiding. I was surprised at their reach given their slow speed.
It left me wondering whether there is a gap. I think the USMC missed a trick cancelling their EFV. It would have never have been a replacement for AAV. But it could have been something in its own right. An alternative to helicopters in some instances. A troop slipping ashore somewhere remote could have some utility.
BAE has production contract to replace cancelled EFV
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/amphibious-combat-vehicle
No, that’s the ACV, not the EFV – very different vehicle.
Its contracted to replace the cancelled EFV development
“Amphibious Combat Vehicle is an adaptable amphibious platform designed from the ground up to fulfill the complex mission objective of deploying Marines from ship to shore.
“Proven to be significantly more effective than the 40-year old Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV), the Marine Corps approved the Initial Operational Capability of the ACV on November 13, 2020.” BAE
Different yes , but replacing the old AAV is what its doing.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/webImageWebp/20230302184344/1573687699729.webp
EFV is cancelled …done..gone ..zapped.
However BAE who have a contract to build ACV to do the same mission
“amphibious platform designed from the ground up to fulfill the complex mission objective of deploying Marines from ship to shore.”
Do try to keep up. This information is for the more open minded NL readers in general
The davits on LPDs had big issues with the safety case. Safety strops ended up being installed to stop the cross beam popping out (just in case.)
CB90s are a little heavier than LCVPs and when tested for use there where plus and minus for their use. Vehicle carriage was a big minus. From my side as an engineer and having refitted a USN one they are a pig to maintain. Access to kit is limited unless you are an anorexic orangutan.
Yes it is not ideal. But removing ballast tanks and the well deck would reduce costs considerably and free volume for the only solution to reach the shore quickly, helicopters.
Yes davits are an issue. But states use them.
The more I look at it the only solution to this ‘problem’ is an LPH, And as we know that is too expensive.
What makes us think Helo are any more survivable than surface connectors though ? Even Houthis and below have MANPADS or could crash multiple FPV drones into a Merlin…..?..
I don’t think they are. And I have not said that they are. In fact I posted links to two raids above and I even pointed out that landing sites had to be secured by forces already on the ground.
I am not endorsing any of this Littoral Strike Group business. I am just exploring approaches to it. I know that is a bit strange for a site where half the regulars just spend their time trying to score points and playing silly beggars.
Whether boats or helicopters are used I cannot see the idea working without vehicles of some sort being landed too. Not everything will be within walking distance of the beach (never mind stores, comms, etc) And you won’t want to plonk helicopters down right on top of the objective for the reasons you have just articulated.
A surface connector doing 25kts is going to be visible for a long time both going in and coming out.
There are reasons why the USN / USMC think to do anything beyond special forces work ashore you need this much stuff.
Using a carrier, a new class of fast LPS, and Bay (replacements) we could just about doing something similar. But obviously not operated at the same level of intensity as the US operates their ARG’s.
I think if the balloon does go up and we find ourselves fighting China with the US I don’t think our carrier(s) will be forward with the US strike groups. I don’t think the Americans would want us under their feet. I think the carrier(s) would probably be with their amphibious forces filled with USMC F35b’s leaving the LHx free to operate MV22 and CH53 in numbers.
Good points. Last first, I don’t think we have any role in the Pacific against the Chinese, and ideally would actually help the US by replacing its forces elsewhere, or perhaps securing SLOCS around Africa, or indeed dealing with Chinese forces in Africa.
So, on the vehicles; we have the BVS10’s which can swim ashore, but actually seem to offer more all terrain / snow advantage to RM possibly not deployed from LSG(N), but that somehow find their way to Norway, Sweden, Finland via other routes or means.
After reading your comment, and looking at the NL post on potential new surface connectors, I noted that the new fast, stealthy landing craft are sized for a Polaris MRZR type “tactical golf cart” which the RM has purchased and is experimenting with. This reminded me of the splendid series by Think Defence on helo carriable vehicles, its a 12 article series, but this seems to be the pertinent one: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2024/02/helicopter-carried-vehicles-part-3-utvs-and-load-carriers/
So, if RM follows USMC in the upgrade from MRZR original diesel, to MRZR Alpha, in 2 and 4 seat versions, it would fit the new stealthy high speed landing craft and in the Merlin – meaning you can drive a fair way from a remote, and hopefully unprotected / unsurvailed landing site to your area of operations. TD suggests a 4 a/c flight of Merlins could deliver 12 Marines and 3 x MRZR Alpha with trailers, but that is still putting the “raiding” in the special ops category – 12 bods with demo charges and satcoms and laser designators………
Yes I remember on TD’s old site we had a lot of discussion of what could and should be shoved into helicopters and STOVL aeroplanes.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ee21e39506024f338d3f0d1181a6d039-pjlq
It begs the question that, if some of these designs are based on ro/ro ferries with modular plug and play pods for different capabilities, why aren’t we giving financial incentives to ferry companies to buy similar vessels built to accept the same pods?
Because the government is now run like a business and having modules sitting idle just in case is the same as stock on the shelves and so is seen as waste.
Getting shipping companies to include certain design elements in their ships is something that happens. The MoD paid ACL to include certain features in the replacement Atlantic Conveyor for example. Even earlier the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company’s Ferry class, built as replacements for wartime LST’s, were designed with input from Admiralty and the WD to transport tanks in a future war.
Somewhat off topic, although not too far. The government are not helping Harland and Wolff, who have been refused a loan guarantee. Madness! The risk of the loan guarantee is far less than the risk to the FSSS programme of H&W going bankrupt again.
How can the government expect RN to talk about MRSS when it just holed the FSSS project below the waterline? Let’s see how much this mess will cost the country. Perhaps they intend to drive it under and nationalise it. I’m not liking this Chancellor at all.
DEJA VUE (from 2001)
All
“It’s astounding that the navy hasn’t locked down some of these major points yet”
Randon Commentator is Spot On!
Quite right = because before anybody can design any ship, the customer needs to defineethe payload it will be carrying = which the RN and RMC have not done yet…
This now needs to go back to before the drawing board = and the RN/RMC need to properly define the payload this ship needs to be carrying…..
—————————————
So we will return to the real matter in hand ……………those weasel words of:
“There seems to have been limited thinking about this aspect of the project until now with Cdr Allen admitting the team still needs to “engage with our industry partners to understand those [capacity] challenges”.
“and so commander, do you mind me asking who do you have in mind as a partner?”
——————–
These “drawings”
“BAE Systems concept images for MRSS”.
If my “intern” had done these drawingsd graphics, they would have been sacked
Note that the two sets of drawings are completely different – all of the ships key features are in different places = so I suspect two office interns have been ordered to get this out asap….r
And thus the main radar mast runs vertically through the helicoptor hanger door = thus making both key features completely and utterly useless…
Furthermore the hanger deck layout and lower deck layout of this conceptual design appears to me be – and what is the polite way to put this next phrase – “borrowed”. They have then been grafted – , by the aforementioned office interns – onto the hull of the unsucessful FSSS design (from three years ago).
——————
However, it is no surprise whatosever that this set of “images” has appeared here on NL just a few days after the brand new government has been appointed
……because the dirty tricks department was awaiting for the election….
A reminder to readers…..who “fairly and squarely” lost the FSSS contract last year?
……….and also – entirely coincidentially you must understand – this “design” which is based on the “loosing FSSS proposal ” has appeared in the media just days after the “Scottish” smear campaign against Harland and Wolff has been 100% sucessful…
The Daily Torygraph is today reporting on the financial fallout of not taking a very simple decision….
…as Jon has just said (directly above) the FSSS is now holed below the waterline
What has just been done – by the Treasury – to Harland and Woolf will competely and utterly destory any chances whatsoever of the FSSS being built by Navantia in Belfast
= so it could be “close the curtains, and put the cat out, for shipbuilding in Belfast”
OR JUST POSSIBLY (see no 3 below)
All in all, to date, this one stinks to high heaven…..and it looks to me like the dirty tricks department is having a field day……they have probably got the champage out as we speak…
——-
.and so the RN will soon be getting a very large pile of poo —- correction —- two very large and very expensive and very smelly piles of poo; both of which will be deliveroo’ed years late..
———
The next steps will be:
The “usual suspects” will soon be sneaking into the back door of No 11 (they already have their own key) and “suggesting” the following procurement approach to the new incumbent:
——————-
This one makes the award of those two ferries to Ferguson’s look like a kids tea party…
I suggest that the National Audit Office digs out its report on the Bay-class fiscao of two decades ago = when exactly the same stunt was pulled on the consortium that won that competition. They bitterly regretted ever hearing that weasel word “Alliance”
About the only thing guarranted about MRSS is that it will be painted grey……. eventually
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. And these quite-pathetic sketches will be waved in front of the new Chancellor.
I heard that not only was Team UK’s bid non-compliant, it was at a significantly higher price. Significantly meaning >£200m. I shall write to my new Labour MP, much good though that will do.
Dear Prudence Mk2 will cost us dear indeed.
TLDR
Read more carefully as the positive stuff is nearer the end
“There is an expectation in government that a solution will be found which removes the immediate risk of the business falling into administration.”…BBC
I would have read that more carefully had I got the news through the BBC. As it was, I didn’t read that at all, so thanks for the steer. I hope the BBC commentary is right.
Should not have sold HMS ocean
And I’m sorry to say it but the defence should come first before healthcare before benefits before pensions it should be coming first. Our world is headed to world War with China and Russia and North Korea China openly admits its intention
She was worn out. The Brazilians have a large ship ancillaries sector and cheap labour so can afford to keep her in operation.
The one thing she did do was prove the RN needed two LHP/D’s built to full naval standards.
All of those nations are a long way away from us and they have to get through a lot of other countries first. We would only ever play a token supporting role in the Far East now. The direct risk to UK interests is low.
Think these should be put on hold as warfare is changing and invading a country from the sea is suicide. We don’t have the crews for them and we don’t have enough frigates to defend the country let alone the lack of land based aaw systems to defend cities. We should look to build corvettes to do a 8 asw role, 8 GP roll, and 8 t32 roll and 8 patrol roll so we have qty and have 8 destroyers, and use commercial cargo ships to do the rest. Also build a hospital ship that can do the humanitarian function. That will allow 4-5 of each category available at sea while the rest are on maintenance and state of readiness.
It will take a lot to break the hold of large ships on major navies but closing the coast will become more and more difficult where a peer to peer conflict is involved. Unless you are prepared to seriously arm these vessels, even then it is a bad bet.
The RSN’s Endurance class LPD. Boats in davits, hangar, well deck, and Ro-Ro. Very flexible, but slow.
Davits are better to launch them all at same time. But are less protected to weather than a well deck.
Recovery I think works better with well deck too. Singapore Endurances have both well deck and davits
They did all that on 8500 tons 141m x 21 m with crew of 81, 5000nm range
You bring them in behind shutters then.
I still think the dock in terms of volume and associated machinery is the problem. Perhaps something like the old USN LKA with boats for’ard and helicopter hangar and flight deck aft.
Really like the Italian San Giorgio but larger.
There is no cheap option with this idea if a company is to be moved in one lift. It means 4 Merlins ideally (plus say a brace of Wildcat) or a number of sizeable boats. LHA is the only way to go if the ship is not to work with the carrier. Carriers which are very empty for their size.
I must admit I would really like to see a LCM size boat in the mix. LCUs mean a well deck but a LCM can be deck launched and it’s a really cheap way to add enough capability to land 3 ton trucks and light armour that a LCVP can’t do.
RAN and Spain have the LCM-1E. It has a good size payload and is quite quick when empty.
This is interesting. Imagine this with folding foils and props which is something many hydrofoils designs have. 40kts with a range of 1500nm lifting 200 tonnes. 110ft in length so 30 or so feet longer than LCAC but 5 feet shorter than a LCU.
Ignore the woo-woo climate change Net Zero rhubarb imagine it with a conventional propulsion system.
The cheaper so simpler so slower your ‘transport’ the greater the need for an expensive, sophisticated, and faster ship to shore connector.
Yeah let’s ignore inconvenient facts like climate change.. might as well ignore other inconveniences such as financial budgets too… in which case order fifty Type 26s frigates for delivery next week!
Dyugon class………………
120 tonnes of cargo at 38kts for 500nm………..
Would a ship like the HMAS Canberra be a good fit for the role? A modified version may be a good for both air and sea platforms like drones.
Too expensive and i imagine anything with a ramp will risk the carriers
A new brownfield site (we’ve already paid enough in freebies to some well-connected and shady business people for the freeports, getting something back would be nice) to build six more-efficient son-of-mistral.
And another one to build thirty MH60S (marinised utility helicopter with proven track record and large spares pipeline) to allow RM and British Army to make unopposed landings from the above.
The Royal Navy wants a Multi role ship? doesn’t that scream LPD and LHD to anyone. I think the Royal navy is trying to not call it what it is and what they REALLY want is an LPD or LHD in the likes of the San Antonio class LPD or America class LHD
I never understood why in ww2 that instead of liberty ships being built in the US that they did not build cargo carrying submarines that could if wanted be fully converted into operational submarines here in the UK
Why do they not build submersible RFA ships. On the surface they are open targets
I am coming months late to this discussion.
Some very interesting and good points made already. Thinking about the role of MRSS, seems to me that we need two classes of amphibious assault ships, not one.
Not too smitten with the whole idea of LRGs, seems a lot of ship required to put a little raiding party ashore and I wonder how often a coastal raid would actually be required and feasible in anything like a peer war.
But let us say that the need is to put either a battalion-sized force (500-700 troops) ashore or a limited raiding party, a Bay Mk 2 would basically fit the bill. It would however need to be a good bit more capable, in 3 respects at least:
* A hangar with space for 4-6 helos minimum. The most likely way of fast insertion will be by rotor from over the horizon. Apart from Merlin HC4 for troop transport, may also need an ASW Merlin for ship defence and likely some of the RM’s Apaches when needed.
* A larger well dock, able to take 2 LCUs and several CICs, enough to ferry in the larger troop numbers and supporting vehicles and supplies; with the fast CICs available for securing a beach landing or ferrying in the raiding party.
* A far better weapons fit-out, as the Bay 2 is likely to have to go in without escorts. So a pretty comprehensive weapons suite, more on the lines of the Stellar Systems Fearless.
That would provide a pretty capable, well-armed assault ship. A class of 3, one per LRG, plus one in mainyenance/reserve.
The second class needed in my book is to retain our ability to land the best part of a full brigade if needed. There are many scenarios where this could be required, both in little wars and in a peer conflict.
What is needed here is a LPH, a 25,000 tonne warship with well dock, hangars, flat top and VSTOL capability. Working with the Bay Mk 2/MRSS, this would give us a potent assault capability far ahead of Ocean or Albion. Ideally 2 ships, with a third in reserve.
This is far more than the RN bufget can afford. The right answer on scale and cost would be to create a joint amphibious force with other northern European allies, where each contributes something to the allied force. The RN would be the framework nation, others would contribute what they can or buy into the development of a LPH and MRSS.