In this guest article, Robert Moyse argues that the RN should take inspiration from the US Marine Corps and consider cheaper, smaller and more numerous vessels to meet the MRSS requirement.
Background
The forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will need to make some hard decisions. There are large funding gaps across the whole defence budget and MRSS is a large, potentially expensive programme that is potentially vulnerable to the axe or at least de-scoping.
There could be cheaper, quicker and better ways of enabling the UK Commando Force (UKCF) operating concept. The days of assured Western sea and air dominance are gone. The US Marine Corps has thought deeply about this in the context of a war in the Pacific. They have concluded that their traditional large amphibious platforms can no longer survive up-threat and they need more baskets with fewer eggs in each – no single vessel should be mission-critical. Even though the UKCF concept is quite different to the USMC Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) concept, the logic is still applicable.
Building smaller vessels instead of the large assault ships to support the core littoral strike mission has procurement benefits as well as potential tactical advantages. They can be built faster, for less money in a wider variety of shipyards. This would allow a more flexible spending profile, making it easier for the MoD to manage its cash flow and, if necessary, build the amphibious fleet in increments as resources become available. More rapid delivery would also reduce the money that will need to be spent to keep ageing platforms going, especially RFA Argus.
The Stern Landing Vessel
The USMC has begun to develop what it initially called the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) which has now evolved into the Landing Ship Medium (LSM). These are far from settled concepts but could provide a pointer for the RN. The US DoD recently signed a lease for a Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) designed by the Australian company, Seatransport Solutions (STS). The SLV is 73m long but the LSM requirement for large payload dictates a vessel around 90m long. STS considers about 65m optimal for amphibious operations in the interests of maximising beach accessibility and could be the best option for supporting the UKCF concept. It has the identical range to a Bay Class LSD(A) and is designed to provide extended duration 24/7 capability with a crew of 18 to 21. (Additional embarked personnel to operate defensive weapons, command staff and medical personnel would increase this number)
The SLV was first developed 30 years ago to supply remote communities and mining operations in Australia. The SLV can cope with open ocean passage in all weathers, deliver supplies rapidly over the beach and have low operating costs. Construction time is typically just 18 months although this might increase slightly with military customisation. The idea of reversing a landing craft onto a beach is counter-intuitive. At first glance, it appears to be a slower, riskier way of getting ashore, but customers who have bought an SLV have never gone back to a conventional bow landing craft.
Landing craft that reverse onto a beach is not a new idea but it has proven very hard to get the propulsion, steering gear and hull shape right. STS has perfected this type of vessel over 30 years of development.
Stern v bow ramps
Traditional Landing ship Tank (LST) with bow ramps have attempted to achieve some of the advantages of an SLV by reducing their hydrodynamic drag. Either with a ramp running over the top of the bow or by shaping the bow doors.
LST designs developed in the Soviet era can theoretically achieve 18 knots, 2 knots faster than the SLV. However, 18 knots could only be achieved in calm conditions, whereas the 65m SLV will sustain 16 knots with a 300-tonne payload and 15 knots with 600 tonnes in sea state 5, which is more relevant to military operations.
More speed also demands a longer, leaner hull form, with consequences for manoeuvrability and survivability. With a bow landing vessel, you can have either good hydrodynamics or good ramp geometry but not both. Free from the constraints imposed by having to accommodate a ramp at the bow, the SLV can use the most efficient shape, including a bulbous bow.
Most landing ships can’t beach with their full cargo load. The US Army’s successful Frank Besson Class LSV can beach with 45% of their cargo capacity which is fairly typical. The 600 tonnes quoted for the 65m military SLV is its actual beaching load. In the SLV accommodation is provided for the crew and an embarked troop/platoon-sized force, but the vessel can be supplied with plumbing and power connections for additional containerised. accommodation modules for up to a Company Group.
SLVs can land directly onto the beach which is much quicker than the slowly docking down LPD. Although they have to come about to land stern-first, they turn very tightly for their size. Unloading the vessel as quickly as possible is usually a tactical imperative. The SLV ramp is also twice as wide as similarly sized bow landing craft, with no height restrictions allowing large loads to be delivered. Low-drag bow landing vessels can’t do this, as the ramp pivot point needs to be about 6ft higher than in an SLV, which leads to unfavourable ramp angles.
Getting off the beach is usually harder than getting onto it. It can take a lot of thrust to overcome the suction between the hull and the bottom. During de-beaching conventional landing ships, with their propulsion going astern, are poor at converting power to thrust. The SLV’s propulsion, conversely, is working at its most efficient. No commercial SLV has become stuck on a beach in 30 years of operation.
Conventional LST designs require saltwater ballast tanks and pumps to trim the vessel. The SLV requires very little trimming and does it by moving fuel, reducing the maintenance requirement.
The military variant of the SLV is toughened to cope with rocky shorelines as well as sandy beaches. The plating is highly bash-resistant with protection for the propellors and steering. In fjords where the gradient is too steep to drop kedge anchors, powerful bow thrusters can be used to keep the vessel in position. Alternatively, the SLV could be fitted with launch and recovery systems for LCVPs (small landing craft) or raiding craft.
Survivability
Despite its commercial origins, survivability is one of the SLV’s greatest advantages. There is no large undivided internal space such as in an LST or Bay class or LPD. The military version uses diesel-electric propulsion, with four widely separated diesel generators below the waterline for survivability. Each is cross-connected to all four DC motors, each driving its own shaft. This provides excellent system separation, redundancy, resilience and watertight subdivision. It is intended that void spaces will be filled with a buoyant non-inflammable foam recently developed at Strathclyde University.
The Russian Ropoucha Class LST, RFS Caesar Kunikov was sunk in February 2024 by hits from two Ukrainian one-way attack USVs. The vehicle deck was penetrated and the free-surface water effect doomed the vessel. (This phenomenon was also responsible for the rapid sinking of commercial ro-ro ferries Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 and Estonia in 1994). In the SLV, the forward end of the vehicle deck is separated from the bow by several watertight compartments and a collision bulkhead. A hit in the same place with the same 200kg warhead would not sink the SLV.
Fuel is stored in robust bullet containers, each in its own compartment, isolated from the bulkheads in shock-resistant mountings with self-contained fire suppression. Multiple redundant fuel pumps are provided and even if a fuel bullet is punctured, the compartment will usually contain the spillage.
Payloads
The military SLV can flex between roles by utilising TEU container-based modular systems. It can therefore be configured to operate as a mother-ship, with various methods of launch and recovery for smaller platforms, either crewed or uncrewed. In its present form, it does not have a flood-down float-out capability like an LPD, but the STS has built versions that can, currently two examples are operated by the Government of Hong Kong.
Using containers to configure the vessel for different missions is key to the flexibility of the SLV and is an extension of the model already envisioned for MRSS. Troops of the embarked force would predominantly be accommodated in containers can be stacked two layers high on the vehicle deck.
The command and control requirements of MRSS have not yet been defined in detail but will need space, weight, power, cooling and antenna farms. There is already capacity in the existing superstructure to command company group-level operations. A larger staff could either use containerised spaces or a dedicated command SLV with a longer superstructure could be built. In general, the SLV is well suited to being adapted for use as a floating Main Operating Base (MOB) or Foward Operating Base (FOB).
The standard SLV design can be fitted with a flight deck aft of the superstructure, designed for UAS, with the option of a near-full-length flight deck for helicopters, at a trade-off in cargo deck flexibility. Aviation capability is not the strength of the SLV, with its lack of a hangar. However, a helicopter-carrying variant could be developed with an aircraft lift and vehicle deck converted to a hangar.
In conclusion
If the RN were to abandon the conventional LPD-type solution for MRSS and develop something based on the SLV it would have several advantages. Having more numerous vessels creates a tactical advantage by distributing assets and the SLV can quickly deliver large payloads to the beach. From a procurement perspective, smaller vessels are easier and quicker to build and with a more evenly spread cost profile.
I can’t see this ship being Chinook-capable which seems to be an unavoidable requirement and it’s too small to deliver a company-size helicopter lift so this ship would remove any UK assault capability. I can see its benefits for logistics/drone mothership etc roles but it would need to be part of a LPH team to meet MRSS requirements.
I agree. These ships need to have hangared helicopters both for sea to shore and sea control operations. RFA Argus is hugely useful because of her ability to carry a number of helicopters and the air component aspect of MRSS will grow in importance as drones start to deliver AEW, ASuW and C4 capabilities.
These are not intended to land troops by helicopter. You land the troops & their vehicles on the beach. They can land more than 500t in one go. How many Boxers can a Chinook lift?
The Royal Navy has abandoned opposed landings over the beach so any heavy lifting can be done by the Point class – assault landings are now all helicopter. Losing the helicopter capability from the Albions and Bays in exchange for these ships would be a massive retrograde step.
Not suggesting opposed landings. USMC are looking at using these for the Asia/Pacific region. In places like Indonesia & Philippines, finding an undefended beach is not hard. Sneaking into some of these littoral areas with a something like a Bay class is not going to be easy or go unnoticed. In many cases, USMC will be looking at getting there first with mobile NSM launchers etc, before the opposition manages to do the same. Australia also has new LCH’s on its list but no details as yet.
But for Europe, I agree these things would be rather niche.
A controversial opinion, should the MoD say to the RN, sorry no money right now? This will simply have to wait while we fund your other urgent priorities. I don’t see anything to cut to pay for this program in the short term.
Is the RN better off agreeing to a 10-15 year capability gap than spending limited funds getting an ineffective solution just to say it on paper somehow avoided a capability gap?
Any capability gap becomes the new normal as politicians divert funds to schools, hospitals and welfare which buys them votes and then argue that if the forces have done without a capability for a period then that proves that they don’t need it.
That said the RN isn’t spending any money on this capability right now. You have two ships that are in long storage, while the MoD and the RN argue about whether fund a crew for one of them.
The reality is the RN budget for this capability was lost years ago. The options come down to an increase in the top line for the RN or forgo something else to pay for it.
Lets be realistic; any “capability gap” of the time-frame you’re suggesting actually means a permanent axing of that capability. If the RN could remain a credible organisation for ten years without some particular item, then it doesn’t need it in the first place. The UK’s armed forces are in a dreadful mess, because the nation is trying to do too much with too little and thus doing most things to a mediocre standard. A sad reflection on the nation’s priorities, I just hope the wheel doesn’t fall of the wagon and expose things for what they are.
Shouldn’t survivability require survival of the people and cargo as much as survival of the ship? There is no large undivided internal space, instead there is a large undivided external space. The ship might not sink but it still looks awfully exposed.
These look like relatively cheap landing vessels, which bear little relationship to MRSS, not least of which is they aren’t multi-role. You can’t plan the role to be changed depending on the contents of TEUs and call it multi-purpose. At extra cost it can operate a UAV — well, bully. It can take a helicopter at even more extra cost and by compromising the carrying capacity. It can have weapons, by again compromising the carrying capacity. And none of these options is modular. The biggest identified drawback of the Bays is the lack of a hangar, and that’s not even mentioned as an option. It’s strongest feature is its 740 sq m cargo deck and the stern landing ramp for RORO operations.
What do people think these will cost at base? £40m? Maybe £80m with the bells and whistIes? I see that the GAO is estimating between $340m and $430m for the USMC Landing Ship Medium (with a helicopter landing pad), that’s triple the original estimates. ASs a multi-role it hardly bears comparison even with the smaller of the Damen through-deck multi-purpose designs being built for Portugal at €132m (including helicopter landing pad, hangar, 650 sqm cargo deck, seven UAV operating points, etc.) The only place the LSM scores strongly is the stern landing ramp as opposed to the Damen’s A-Frame.
I agree protection from blast and shrapnel is very important.
Whilst 15mm steel won’t stop a armour piercing bullet it will stop or mitigate a lot of things. Particularly if you have fixed active and passive fire protection.
This idea should be named The Death Trap Class. Sorry but that is my opinion.
If you compare this to what Albions offer then these are a very poor substitute.
The other day I posted, strictly you hit in cheek on UKDJ, about Points being used once the area was satanised. Here it is Points up first.
What is being conveniently forgotten is that MILSPECing this kind of vessel is expensive and critical.
So actually producing some larger vessels would cost little more. Larger vessels are inherently more survivable with more compartmentation separation of prime movers and weapons systems by physical distance.
I’m intrigued to know what satanising the area means. Walking boackwards? Painted red? Fitted with horns and hooves?
😂😂😂
Very good
For the most part LPDs don’t have armour.
They have some Kevlar plating in specific locations but thats it.
Indeed which is why I said 15mm plate doesn’t stop AP rounds.
But I agree Kevlar can be fitted as small arms and shrapnel protection. It isn’t that expensive and doesn’t have a significant top weight penalty.
Ship building steel plate is pricier and stronger than ordinary plate
I was talking about ballistic protection.
That is different from strength grades.
Actually 15mm plate does stop a standard NATO 5,56mm AP round…it will not stop a 7.62 AP round as long as it’s within 300meters . But it will stop both 5.56 and 7.62 standard rounds…at all ranges, 5.56mm AP at all ranges and 7.62 AP beyond 300meters..so it’s pretty effective protection from small arms.
LPDs are also not supposed to get close enough to the beach to be hit by something you realistically could armour against… these things would.
They don’t really want to be close enough to be hit by a missile but that is somewhat trickier
It is an interesting design with capabilities that has potential.
adding CAMM into the exhaust stack ‘wings’ would give self defense eg. a 3 cell xls launcher for 24 a ship) along with a 40mm on the bow and either side the stern with a few RWS around the decks.
Containerized munitions (eg. MLRS, NSM etc.) could also easily mounted as top level of containers above stores/accommodation/mission containers below if required (eg. first row behind the bridge) and not reduce loading or deck space excessively.
Problem with this idea is that you have to take into account fire risk to the launchers if they are next to diesel uptakes etc. will exhaust get sucked into the diesel intakes. How will the WEs get access to do rounds/maintenance. Heck where are the extra WEs going to live?
Didn’t you read the article? Up to 200 people can live in TEUs (paint the inside bright colours, put a bit of carpetting down, maybe a welcome mat outside). What do you mean, putting people in a metal box in hot conditions was the punishment method in Bridge on the River Kwai? Nonsense! Our lads are made of sturdier stuff. Besides, they can leave the door open, let a little air in.
They are more likely to met by helpful asylum lawyers than an opposing army.
Great for returning failed asylum seekers. Back in to the beaches near Calais or Dunkirk and its job done, all safely and civilized. Their lawyers can accompany them in their Range Rovers.
CAMM gets punted 30m into the air before tipping over & main motor fires. Exhaust getting sucked into diesel intakes is much more likely with hot launch missiles. It’s a non event.
So filling the intake with inert gas won’t affect combustion?
What inert gas , its just compressed air.
Adding some AA capability is always good for self-defense, given drone and AShM threads. However, 40mm/CAMM alone is insufficient; it needs some AA detection ability, e.g., radar.
Very nice landing vessel design, but in the MRSS the RN are looking for more than a LV. If you reduce the scope/ requirements of the MRSS to accommodate the SLV design above then the RN will simply yet need another class of vessel to fulfil the descoped requirements and operate in tandem with the SLV.
So the choice between protecting between 2 and 6 large assault ships deploying a combat brigade ashore, or these? How many would you need to deploy that same brigade, twenty? There would be no helicopter support, as already mentioned, no medical/hospital for casualty evacuation. A trip in one of these to the south Atlantic, Ukrainian border, or anywhere of distance is going to be an unpleasant ride for any marines in that open deck space? What role would it play in peacetime? With no hospital and no helo, it won’t be covering hurricane duties, humanitarian aid, counter Narcotics.
Always interesting to see new ship designs. As an addition to the fleet these might have a place, for a couple of them, but not as replacements for genuine multi role ships.
Current doctrine seems to be that we are out of the brigade assault game and raiding is the new watch word.
It’s true that dynamic beach landings are not the norm, or even realistic expectations in any modern war, but if we deploy abroad in any future war, our tanks and mechanised vehicles can’t be flown in any numbers.
At some point, the Army numbers will be rebuilt, whether it’s this government or the next, in both accounts, we make the choice today on how we deliver them to the front line.
The Point Class is the way the army gets to an area back from the front line then it drives.
Isn’t this design, the Point class with a camo paint job?
Points have over 7 times the capacity, need a third of the crew and travel 7 knots faster with double the range. Other than that…
23,000 tons fully loaded ‘Points’ will do that compared to this concept at maybe 1/10 th that
I was talking capacity in lane metres rather than weight. I don’t know which is the practical limiter for RM operations. Whichever, it’s a big multiple.
Absolutely not. The Point class needs at least a basic moderately deep water dock to discharge cargo. These are ideas to discharge on to the shore.
Points have loaded up mexefloats and LCUs from the stern ramp.
A future fast connector should prove to be an issue for loading that way.
A conversion to an MV Ocean Trader fit would give you an 80% solution without spending 10s or even 100s of millions extra to get the extra 20% for an infrequently if ever used capability.
Good catch
Only in very low sea states.
Peacetime use…Scottish ferry.
Being scots they have an existing better idea.
The last existing drive on ‘turntable’ ferry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCLNDYaNRzA
Make space under the bridge so vehicles can disembark off a front ramp. RORO
The point of this design was is, as explained in the article, not to have a front ramp so as not to handicap the performance of the ship.
I can see how this makes perfect sense for supplying remote communities and mining operations. However I can’t see it making any sense for approaching a hostile shore.
Get in and out as quickly as possible and as stealthily as possible must be the only way to go. And pack as lightly as possible.
However good the damage control these things look horribly vulnerable to drones, ATGWs, you name it.
These are an alternative to heavy landing craft. You turn up with a Bay class, you still have to get your gear ashore. CR/2, Ajax, Boxer etc are not going to get there in a Chinook & a Bay can’t handle a heavy landing craft anyway). The problem with traditional landing craft is limited load, slow speed & difficulty getting off the beach. These things are designed to do 15-18 knots. They don’t need the Bay to ferry them, they can get there on their own, with a maritime attack / utility helicopter if that’s what you want. They also have no problems getting off the beach & getting out of range of artillery etc.
Distributed lethality is what USMC are looking for Is it what RM & RN is looking for? Don’t think they have thought that one through yet.
“a Bay can’t handle a heavy landing craft anyway” – not sure what kind of heavy landing craft you are thinking of, a Bay can handle pretty much anything we currently have in inventory.
Bays can take a single LCU…Been there …done that! 😁
They can take 3x MEXE’s 2 LCVP’s and 1x LCU
It’s how long a big ship has to sit there while you ferry half a dozen armoured vehicles & a support company with their vehicles ashore? Unopposed landing doesn’t mean it stays that way. A Bay is a big target. Sir Galahad is what happens if you hang around too long. The idea with these things is they arrive ready to unload with the equivalent of multiple LCU loads & don’t hang around on the beach. Niche? Yes. But if that’s the niche your faced with, there are worse options.
Nice article but not really enough ship for global deployments
No. Not this and not the current option. Nothing will survive.
I also found it curious that all ships in the images, not one have self defence…
This seems all well and good, it really does and I am a massive fan of having larger numbers over larger (and fewer) assets. However, my concern is how the currently procured number of T26/31 and T45 can provide escort capability to a larger amount of smaller units with the same effect. By changing the number of vessels and making them smaller, we would probably need to reassess escort capabilities, not to mention logistics and basing issues which come along with it.
The problem with a larger number of smaller ships is the crew numbers to man them.
A larger more complex ship will carry more marines per crew than smaller ships.
Recruitment of crew is the big problem these days.
Interesting design, but awaiting judgement.
1: RN/RM do not need to hurry MRSS. Bays are useful (maybe with small modification) and there is no money to buy MRSS other than cutting something else.
2: This design is “interesting” but never proven. We know how the USN LCS went. Promising, and went wrong. UK must not rush to this design, and keep “assessing” MRSS design for another 10 years.
No problem, there is no money.
USMC have at least learned the LCS lesson. They have only ordered one! Non military versions do exist but appear to be customised quite a lot for individual uses. The designer does have some military credentials (Thailand, India & Australia), but has never built a military version of one of these before.
Interesting discussion. I would highlight a few points.
Helicopters need a hangar for protection from the elements and maintenance, this is a challenge for smaller vessels to achieve, the same goes for surface connectors. Smaller, faster raiding craft will be needed. But they too need to be stored and maintained somewhere….these factors have usually driven the size of amphib platforms. As well as requiring to house a large number of personnel.
From a people perspective we need to overcome the challenge of the dispersal of enablers to amphibious operations. For example…aircraft engineers. There are economies of scale to haven’t them co-located rather than dispersed.
Logistics is also a key challenge. Where do you store the significant logistic supply chain required?
Lastly. The Australian use case for amphibious platforms and the variety of tasks / global operational reach is different from the UK. We need to consider the multi role nature of these platforms…which is also one of the foundational benefits of amphibious capability.
I agree that dispersal is a key factor in protecting the force, and I also agree that smaller vessels provide a slightly more agile procurement pathway. However there are some basic physics related to amphib operations which are unavoidable.
If we look at a Falklands 2 scenario. Would you want to be stuck on a small 65m vessel that had to travel from the UK to down south. Where it will disembark troops/vehicles in the depth of a South Atlantic winter. Poke that for a laugh!
Perhaps the Royal Navy should sit down with the Dutch Navy again if the LPD is going to be scrapped. The Dutch Navy is currently developing a ship that they call ATS or Amphibious Transport Ships. Perhaps this is a better option than the American one. Due to the long-standing cooperation between the Royal Marines and the Dutch Marine Corps, this is perhaps a better option. Although I prefer “real” LPDs. They are going to build six of them. If the RN carries out this project together with the Dutch Navy, it will certainly be a cheaper option. These ships are scheduled to enter service in the early 2030s.
Damen has something similar under contract for Portugal but using some EU funds
.webp
The concept diverged so much that the Dutch pulled out of the project.
Last official comment I saw was that MRSS needed to be ” a large non complex warships “. The Dutch are looking for something smaller, hence the decision to end a possible joint development.
The advantage of the Damen design seems to be its potential to fulfil other roles if needed. Drone operating, MCM motherships, disaster relief.
That is correct because the Royal Navy had a much more expensive option in mind and the Dutch Navy has no budget for that because they have to replace six ships. Those are the Holland class OPVs and two LPDs. This is a much cheaper option that will somewhat resemble the ship that Damen is going to deliver to Portugal, but much larger. There is talk of ships of 150 meters with 60 to 70 crew members. In terms of appearance, these will pass as helicopter carriers or drone carriers.
It doesn’t seem to have the utility of a large ‘truck’ like the Bay class to just move lots of stuff and provide value in non-war operations.It also doesn’t look much fun to spend months embarked on as part of an LRG stooging around.
It doesn’t seem a great platform for ‘raiding’. It’s not going to raid itself onto beaches against peer opponents at 16kt as a medium sized non stealthy vessel, and doesn’t seem a great host to helicopters/small craft.
While it’s potentially cheap and fast to build I don’t think an attrition strategy is the best call.
I have been following the rise of this idea for a long time now. Too small for what the RN wants and just the wrong type of hull. This proposed replacement for the Elbe class seems more in line. And these would too small and not quite right too.
I like the idea of this one too – stretch it a little and it would suit quite nicely and be very versatile.
OK, not what I would consider an area of expertise, but to me these seem slow. Fort class can do 20 knots, our carriers 25. Is it likely that these vessels would ever need to be part of a fleet and if so would it be able to keep up?
Wouldn’t envy the RM (and indeed the Ship’s company) sailing to the South Atlantic in one of these… in Winter!
No helicopter, barely any self protection – I’m sure they’re fine delivering equipment to support the mining industry around Australian coastal waters but they look woefully lacking as warships
Have you seen the size of most North Atlantic fishing vessels – who operate in winter
The story says they are only designed for a crew who operate not carrying a landing force of RM
These are being built for Pacific Islands not the Atlantic. They are still building LPDs and LHAs, but their size make them unsuitable for landings on smaller islands. I can’t see hardly any use for these in a European domain.
Indonesia consists of around 17,000 islands, Philippines 7,500 islands, Australia has 8,000 islands, then there is all the smaller Pacific nations. There are several island nations in the Indian Ocean where these could be of use. No one is stupid enough to try a mass invasion of the Caribbean island nations. So yes, these are aimed at fighting WW2 in the Asia/Pacific all over again.
Should such an event take off on such a scale, the NATO nations likely to be dragged in are US, Canada, France & UK.
That maybe be true, but I would still like to see UK amphibious operations optimised for European operations rather than Indo-Pacific. The latter will have to work around the former, we do not have a budget for two completely different amphibious requirements.
The problem for the RN/RM is that these ships are proposed by the USMC as being in addition to the LPD and LHD. For the RN/RM they would be it as far as Amphibious warfare. If this is the future of UK Amphibious warfare then there is no future. Nothing is impossible where politicians and the treasury are involved but hopefully this idea is strangled at birth..
Seems like a “product push” rather than a logical coherent use case, which would involve an analysis of what we have and where we are. An analysis of changing dynamics and the elements necessary for said changed dynamic and where this solution fits in.
As others have noted, transport is essential for these mission profiles and a solution without helicopter/tiltrotor functionality built in is pretty useless.
Yes. Product push was my thought too.
The British should just get the Damen LST can call it a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk
How is that going to fill the requirements.
so. can 5 or ten of these carry all we need [say] to the Falkland’s and back safely.
around cape horn ,the arctic storms, [you may need to in an emergency.
to re-enforce or supply items to troops. just saying like. this is not the pacific ocean , the north sea can be very tough indeed. so surely the RN will still need big ships that can cope with all weathers. just saying like…
These are long range heavy landing craft. Nothing more, nothing less. Much more speed & better sea keeping than traditional. You don’t sail heavy landing craft to the Falklands. Then again, if you want to redo Normandy, invade Ireland or Spain’s Canary Islands, they may be useful. Otherwise, they would need to be based in Singapore or alternatively, Brunei (where a Gurka battalion is based).
From articles in the newspaper, we’ve already invaded the Canary Islands without the use of landing craft. So maybe the MOD just need to subsidise package tours to wherever with the promise of cheap booze, easy sex and banging tunes (or modern equivalent). My contribution to grey-zone warfare. 😉
Doesn’t work so well in Brunei (promise or otherwise).
The problem I have is seaworthiness. I dont know where these have operated but to me they dont pass the test for the South or North Atlantic where that open deck looks vulnerable and a lot of equipment could end up unservicable. For D Day, Baltic ops or the Med they might be useful, but size as they say matters in the Ocean proper.
I wost tinklin thery nise an wontin 24 foor inversion ov Tauric
Buy up some second-hand Point or similar class ships. Do a conversion on the upper deck to fit a flight deck, hangar and side doors below the flight deck for boats.
Add an extra Accom block.
MV Ocean Trader is the result.
Royal is going to be raiding not doing a full Commando sized beach assault.
Something like Ocean Trader has helos, fast connectors and can have an organic long range precision strike capability onboard to mallet stuff ashore and then leave the area.
I would say that something like Ocean Trader is going to give you more capability at a lot less cost than a beach stern landing boat for north of 300Mil quid which is the estimated cost of these new builds being touted for the USMC to help them do pacific island hopping.
Arguably we’ve already seen this style of conversion with RFA Argus which is now classed as a Littoral Strike Ship. And given her longevity of service, the conversion has been highly successful thus far.
It needs saying again. The simpler and slower the basic hull the more complex the ship to shore connector is going to be.
This mean helicopters and to lift a company safely this 6 or so Junlies with a clutch of Wildcat.
Specialist boats mean a dock or davits dependent on size.
https://www.twz.com/21261/americas-elusive-special-operations-mothership-is-packing-stealth-speedboats
Sir Galahad & Tristan were exactly like this without the stern landing facility – can we not learn from history!? If USN & USMC want to waste money then fine but the RN & RFA should know better…
They need air cover or decent air defence just because landing ships can now park backwards doesn’t change the issue they are too small for dedicated escorts or sophisticated air defence and carry too much to afford to lose the men and material if they are the answer then the Bay class wouldn’t exist & be so successful
Sea Ram is perfect for that
A bit pricey but just have the vessels fitted for but not with so they can be used in most critical situation
It also occurs to me that if the requirement is to have a medical role, do you really want to be doing surgery on a small ship that will move a round a lot more than a large one?
Triage . Can provide care for most and the really urgent airlifted after condition stabilised like an ambulance or A&E would do.
Air lift to where though? If these are not suitable, and assuming you’re not putting your hospital capability on the possibly elsewhere carrier, where will you put the medical facility that will be in helo range?
The USMC is testing stern landing vessels, but the LSM will not be one, regardless of what this author states. There is not enough helicopter capability, not enough space for today’s defensive armament (SeaRAM and 20/30mm guns), not enough space for fuel for a 4500 nm range, and not enough space for 70-100 Marines for a week’s transit.
While these may have some utility as small logistics or tender/mothership types, a better option, if one wanted a small landing ship, would be Damen’s LST-100/120 type vessels.
If you accept that opposed landings are dead then the next question logically is, how many helicopters can your amphibious vessel handle?
With that in mind, this doesn’t seem like a good solution.
This is a USMC & possibly a RAN led solution. Helicopters have a limited load capability. Helicopters have also become easy prey of late. It’s about mobile AShM & SAM batteries & what it takes to support & defend them & are intended for use amongst island chains like Philippines, Malaysia & Indonesia. Why would UK be at all interested? This is aimed at one potential opposition & it’s not Russia. Why would UK be directly dragged in to this hypothetical situation? UK actually has troops stationed in Brunei. Brunei is not the place to be if you want to stay out of an Asian-Pacific war (check a map). Just because they are Gurkhas does not let UK off the hook (nor should it).
Not saying this is a must have RN capability. But there are reasons some are looking at this. One can of course, always hitch a ride.
Let’s be honest here. Amphib at present is and has been for a considerable time been done by the RFA. That maybe hard of some of you the accept but the LSDAs are the hardest running vessel in the RFA and have provided excellent service since their introduction. Of not the LSL also were the back bone of anything Amphib during their 40 year service and certainly spent longer at sea doing the job than the 2 x LPD’s Fearless and Intrepid however like much of the RFA we’re not noticed. Whatever mod decides for the amphib way forward it will be driven by money so,I would not hold your breath but I see 4 x ships at best and probably LSDA size. They need a dock and fight deck but not necessary a hanger and they will need to do 18 kts. Great if they are full DP ships and have decent comms. This may sound dull to some but money and crew availability will drive the requirement!
Amphibious warfare means troops and material being transported by sea.
But not every instance of troops and material being transported by sea is amphibious warfare.
RN LPD’s are warships built to naval standards designed to be taken into contested areas and fought.
RFA LSA(A) / LSL are logistical support ships built to civilian standards designed to follow on.
The reason why lesser ships have been pushed into other roles isn’t anything to do with their suitability more the RN’s lack of ships.
exactly
Look at amphibious operations through history, most are converted merchant vessels. I’m not arguing about the need for command ships or warships I’m discussing the reality that the RN cannot man them and the ships need to be flexible platform. Unfortunately the navy have neither!
No they were not. Ships at the sharp end more often than not were designed for task. Amphibious ships like LPD are warships. Just because a ship doesn’t have missiles or airyplanes doesn’t mean it isn’t a warship. The amphibious warfare ship’s main battery is the EMF.
The UK’s MN is no better shape than the RN or has the RFA’s troubles passed you by?
Yes. That usage mostly changed after Dunkirk. The sheer numbers of troops meant that specific design and volume build was required
The first LST used adapted shallow draft Lake Maracaibo commercial ships and soon changed to new build.
The LSD with a floodable dock came from innovations at RCNC and was developed further in US and built there- despite a lot of scepticism ( a bit like the wooden Mosquito faced). A ‘sinking ship’ – cant work they would have said
HMS Thruster a Mk 1 LST ordered from H&W in 1941
I keep reading money isn’t there and ship building capacity certainly isn’t there…. The most cost effective option would be to keep – and reactivated – Albion and Bulwark. Even if together they cost £50m a year to run, even if the replacement capability costs ‘just’ a billion ( a billion quid doesn’t seem to buy much these days) that’s 20 years of operation of actual warships, with their flexibility, C3 infrastructure and ability to deter
They are both knacker?
Why are they knackers after only 20 years in commission? Compared to the USN Harpers Ferry class is still in commission after 30 years.
The USN LSD general has a long service life of 40 years and more.
Look how they have been maintained and run. No spares and contracts that are poorly written added to the fact RN sailors are no longer Taught ships husbandry properly anymore.
That begs the question what is the point of having new ships when current ones could not be maintained?
Due to the periods in extended readiness they should be much less knackered then their age suggests. I know there is an issue with generating crew but that’s the same for any new design as well.
Let us have six vessels that do everything that we want, a bit more costly.
It is better to have ten that are less focussed and are cheaper.
Good idea.
Treasury, you wanted six before, you can have six now, of this cheaper design.
Japan Coast Guard are building a new command / disaster relief ship. Helicopters and davits and lots of small boats. Too rich for us though at £363 million a copy.
Singapore’s MRCV still seems better and is under construction. Its great that there is so many viable choices in this area.
I hope the not invented here syndrome doesnt affect the RN
These look great. Britain can easily afford any and all of them if it really wants to, even with its current pathetic GDP per person, now down to half that of the US.
I really question the current assumptions of both major UK parties that government regulation and subsidies are the cure for any and all problems, so wrong. If you look up a table eg IMF of govt share of expenditures vs gdp per capita, you wil find they are inversely related. Socialist Britain is operating at about half of its potential.
Meanwhile all western powers including USA seem to be neglecting defense, the first responsibility of any government, ambling aimlessly towards a very possible WWIII for which they are totally unprepared. So sad.
Cheers
John
current pathetic GDP per person – who cares?
Is known as BREXIT, we have the country back and take back control, lol
Lol! Lol! Lol!
The vote may have been won. The government have not taken advantage of the change and continue to slavishly follow their masters in Brussels. The government belong to a small minority who out of touch with global realities and don’t understand economics. The same minority you belong too.
Lol! Lol! Lol!
Brexit is Brexit, don’t moan, the decision of the British people.
It’s a good thing I voted for it isn’t then? And not only voted campaigned too……..
GDP per person doesn’t make any sense. Service based economies don’t generate wealth that keeps pace with needs such as infrastructure investment. We need fewer impacting on our infrastructure not more. Never mind those that are brought in don’t contribute on the whole economically.
Exactly . The normal PPP version shows Ireland with more GDP per capita than USA, numbers vary according to whose counting ( dont believe the CIAs numbers)
And Bermuda is wealthier per capita than US, but we all know thats because of tax evasion.
Yes we all understand about PPP, GDP and other ways of measuring national output, but sadly all point to a UK much poorer than before, iwith very high taxes, bloated social programmes, intrusive regulations and subsidies stifling incentivse for private enterprise which is what actually creates jobs and wealth.
Even if you think the current overweening interventionist government model is a good thing, UK still needs a much larger defense effort with the immediate threats on the continent and further abroad.
Even the current self-impoverished UK can afford lot more, and needs to prioritize that over more bailouts for the NHS.
Cheers
John
Looks like common or garden offshore supply vessel that we have had for 50 years in the North Sea. Hopefully at the same price!
Ahh – no. These are designed to supply islands with some form of beach (pebble or sand) more inline with the tropics than the North Sea. Caribbean, South East Asia, Pacific Islands (both North & South), Australia, New Zealand etc
Interesting looking.