Following confirmation that the Royal Navy’s MRSS programme will go ahead, Steller Systems has announced their Fearless concept as an alternative approach to the design and a starting point for discussion.
Fearless is designed not just to enable littoral strike operations but is relatively heavily armed and intended to survive in very contested A2AD environments. This is rather at odds with the RNs “non-complex warship” stated ambition for MRSS but is well worth considering.
Amphib
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). The vehicle deck is accessed by optional side-doors or the stern ramp but there is no well dock.
The stern ramp allows the launch and recovery of vessels up to 20m in length and 30 tonnes in weight. This could include Commando Insertion Craft, USVs, UUVs, XLUUVS or vehicles discharged onto mexeflotes or similar. While not as versatile as a well dock, this arrangement saves space and weight but can be safely utilised further offshore. Flooding down a vessel to use the dock is also only really viable in light sea states and low-risk environments.
Upper deck space is available for up to 5 TEU containers/PODS or additional weapon systems. The hangar can accommodate two Merlin-sized helicopters or a mix of helicopters and UAS. Fearless can comfortably handle the mothership role already performed by the Bay class and support missions as varied as mine warfare, seabed warfare, ASW and Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief.
Fast
The hull has been designed using Steller System’s HullTune optimisation suite to ensure the best balance between hydrodynamic efficiency and stability. Combined with an advanced propulsion system, a mix of conventional shaft lines and azipods, the ship could achieve up to 30 knots – much faster than typical amphibious vessels. This turn of speed would enable the vessel to reposition rapidly to deliver raiding sorties across a broad theatre before then delivering effects to the beach. The vessel could then quickly leave the threat area to conduct other operations or reload with additional or alternative forces.
-
Model on display at Combined Naval Event, May 2024 -
The propulsion system uses azipods and contra-rotating electrically driven shafts that combine with a hydrodynamically efficient hull design to allow the vessel to move at 30 knots whilst using less power than a Type 23 frigate. -
Combined azipod and conventional shaft. The aizipod provides great manoeuvrability at low speed. At high speed they are locked and steering is via the rudder on the centreline (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
Overview of the model (Photo: Navy Lookout).
Armed
The heavy armament indicated in the concept comprises two medium-calibre guns. The 127mm Mk4 would enable Naval Gunfire Support while the 76mm Super Rapid is an all-rounder that can also offer air and missile defence with advanced ammunition. Additionally, there is a VLS silo indicated for various missile options. Close in defence is well covered with a mix of 30mm cannon, Phalanx CIWS and DragonFire LDEW mounts. This is complemented by a frigate-size primary radar and soft-kill defensive systems.
This is very much a concept only and if taken forward, would require much more detailed design work and nuanced equipment choices to be made by the customer. It might make more sense to align the equipment fit with Type 31 frigate and select the same weapons, sensors and CMS for commonality, reducing logistic support and training costs.
Positioning
Fearless is a hybrid design blending frigate armament with amphibious capabilities. Perhaps best summarised as a cross between an enlarged Danish Absalon-class logistics combatant and the BAE Systems’ Adaptable Strike Frigate concept. While the RN budget for MRSS is unlikely to stretch to such a heavy armament there is an argument that this approach would give the fleet much-needed additional surface combatant mass. When employed in the littoral strike role it could operate in higher-risk areas, reducing the need for precious escorts for protection. Fearless has been designed to disaggregate to smaller more capable vessels rather than as direct replacements for the Albion and Bay classes. More platforms creates more uncertainty in a mind of the adversary about where they may strike. The concept has also been developed with export in mind and the level of armament is entirely up to the customer.
The multi-role vessel concept will always be controversial as many argue it is better to build specialist ships rather then ‘jack of all trades’ platforms that trade excellence in a particular capability for flexibility. A vessel with this level of complexity would also require the skills of industrial partners with high-end combat system integration experience whereas a more bare-bones MRSS could be built by a wider number of shipbuilders.
Like the BMT Ellida concept, Fearless provides another useful option for discussion around MRSS and it is likely other entities will make proposals soon. Whether the MRSS design will emphasise aviation, logistics, armament, overall flexibility or be dictated primarily by budget parsimony remains to be seen.
(Imagery: Steller Systems)
Seems like it has the potentially to merge MRSS and T32 plans together which is a bit worrying, but in a way im not sure of how bad this would be – seems to me like an excellent, highly innovative and suitable replacement for currently Amphib fleet. If they came with a weapons fit similar to what this early moc up has, they would be able to operate independently from escorts, which frees up the fleet, but also if 6 are delivered, their capabilities for troops and vehcihles are simlar if not better than current fleet of (amhibs + Argus). Seems a bit like a beefed up Absalon class? Overall, I for one am really happy with this suggestion/concept and think with a few tweaks it has the potential to be a proper step-change from current capabilities. BZ to Steller Systems
Certainly it has the drawback of losing some amphibious ability without a well dock, but equally it makes up for more pressing short falls in the LRGs such as escorts.
Tbh merging T32 seems more likely than actually getting new frigates.
Yeah, I mean the Article seems to suggest that the stern ramp is actually better in quite a few ways compared to well dock – takes up less space, can be operated in a lower sea state etc – although it does lose the ability for commonality with other nations + I assume it limits the vessels you can use/max weight etc. But if Marines are going for Lighter raiding and all they need is 4 LCVP replacements per ship to carry troops and light Vehichle (+ other USV’s and craft shown by them), then prehaps it is the right idea?
True, theres not even plans in place far as i can tell to replace the larger LCU landing craft, would a well dock end up taking too much space only to be under utilised. Perhaps, though it also leaves plenty of room for future amphibious craft. I expect the final outcome may at the least have a well dock.
It’s a similar argument to STOVL over CATOBAR; less maximum capability, but for what we want to do arguably far more useable in a variety of situations.
Honestly I think this is the best option for the RN. The aspiration to have multiple Littoral Response Groups has a major gaping hole; no firepower to defend and support the assault ships/auxiliaries forming the group.
To steal an old classification from the USN in the 70s, these strike cruisers represent the best solution for a fleet lacking manpower, hulls, and any heavy equipment that needs landing.
AS much as I want seperate MRSS and T32, I increasingly dont see it happening, so am inclined to agree
A practical compromise might be to roll the 5x T32s and 6x MRSS into a further 3x T31s and 5-6x Fearless.
Technically that’s a reduction in total planned hulls, but it’s still a small increase in escorts, an increase in guns and launchers across the fleet, and it reduces the requirements on the escort fleet.
Certainly not possible with a 15500t warship.If they go to a 6000-8000t might be.
Wdym – when i say a merge of T32 and MRSS, i mean an amphib sized vessel, but with weapons capabilities of A frigate? The Dutch said that one of the reasons the programme split was because the UK was looking for a more heavy armed warship compared to them? Definitely would be possible at 15,000 tonnes. 32x VLS gives a good mix for self defence and land attack, but isnt over kill. 5 inch gives long range NGS (with modern ER ammuntion).
I wonder what the cost of arming them would be.
https://www.twz.com/sea/what-the-navys-ship-launched-missiles-actually-cost
Dutch want an OPV+multirole ship smaller than their own current LPD.s
15500t ship is much more expensive to operate than a 6000t one.
Ok, but we are planning to operate 15-20,000 tonne MRSS already and 6,000 tonne t32, so why would a 15,000 tonne mix be unfeesible if the programmes were merged?
Merge MRSS and T32 might mean these ships could do a stint in Gulf in HMS Lancaster role. Somehow think they wouldn’t be risked and sent to safer waters of Caribbean!
Multirole cruiser.
If I was a betting man i’d guess 127,76mm and 30 knots will not make it to final design. Sea Ceptor, 40mm plus Dragonfire or son of would. Like everything it depends on money and recruitment. Will 2.5% of GDP simply fill the equipment budget shortfall or will it provide new money. What does it mean for Type 31 batch 2 or Type 32. If as expected neither will see the light of day then MRSS will need a warship design and defence capability. If as hoped they are still in play then compromises are possible.
It would be very nice if 127mm survived but it makes sense to replace 76 and Phalanx with the T31 fit of 57mm and 40mm for commonality with future stuff.
If 6-8 of these were actually built it would certainly fill MRSS and go a long way towards T32 as well.
Could be wrong but I think the 127mm is over $30m a pop. That’s not a lot for a top of the line warship like Type 26 but it’s a big chunk of the budget for something like MRSS. I think you’re right on Type 32 if they’re off the table MRSS will need to be able to defend itself.
Ok
Maybe 2x 57mm, 2x 40mm and Dragonfire
That’s pretty comprehensive against pretty much any threat inside 10km.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way on 57mm. But the RN is with you on it having an important role. So I can agree.
yeah, I mean it sorta depends on if MRSS and T32 merge into 1 being – which this ship design from Stella seems to be like? If it did go this way (looking increasingly likely), then you could expect to see (fingers crossed), a 127mm for NGS if closer in to shores, 57mm (instead of 76), and 40mm instead of phalanx? 32x Mk41 would be coherent w type 31 etc
127mm plus Mk41 would be expensive. I don’t think they’d get through to the final design. We might go the same route with Mk41 as we did with Type 31. FFBNW and see if the money is available further down the line.
What I was saying was it depends on if T32 and MRSS merge into 1 programme – if they start separate, Mk41 and 5 Inch is definitely unaffordable, but if they merge, this is more likely and definitely not outside what the budget for this type of ship. If 6x MRSS/T32 combination merge, the budget would likely be more than £3 billion and so a 30 million gun (180 million for 6, doesnt really make a dent)
The problem with NGS is the proliferation of anti ship missiles and UAVs. NGS would only be viable in permissive environments where both have been suppressed. The Houthis have demonstrated the difficulty of doing that only from the sea and air. Ground forces might be the only way to remove them from the equation. Which leaves us in a chicken and egg situation.
New ER ammuntition such as VULCANO give 80-100km range, which is more than enough for if it was operating in littorals – such as choke points like Red Sea atm
You could be right. The upside to switching to 127mm is we have the option to piggyback on new ammo development. The problem is the cost of the gun system. Is the benefit worth the cost ? Do we expect to have a Type 26 available ? Do we want to use Type 26 for that job ?
We’ll have a better idea when we have an idea what the budget for MRSS is. 127mm is not cheap and i’m not convinced it would be effective other than in very limited circumstances for NGS. But we’ll see.
Mk41 is unlikely but if the VLS were room for 24 CAMM then that wouldn’t break the bank and would also allow the ship to be more confident with AShMs flying around.
Agreed. AShMs and UAVs are already an issue for littoral operations and the problem is only going to increase in the future.
for 127mm, double the US$30m number
“BAE Systems USA has been contracted to deliver three of the well-proven Mark 45 gun systems for installation aboard Australia’s first three Hunter-class frigates.In a deal worth US$255 million (AU$380 million), BAE Systems will provide the three shipsets with the Mark 45 medium calibre gun, complete with the automated ammunition handling systems.-Australian Defence
Bloody hell that’s a lot add in 5 years of inflation and you wouldn’t get much change from $100m.
Note that price includes the very expensive automatic ammunition handling system. That’s an optional system. It would be considerably cheaper (up front), to go traditional.
Australians use Whole Life Accounting, so that cost would include lifetime spares, maintenance support and training whereas in the UK we would just quote the sticker price.
Not necessarily. Sometimes it is the sticker price (eg FMS sale), however as always with defence, even the sticker price is questionable (spares, training, maintenance, ammo, installation?).
The project itself will use whole of cost accounting.
MoD use whole life accounting these days as well.
Good to see a warship proposal properly armed. RN has been to focussed on hulls rather than war fighting
Because we have a major lack of hulls, all very well having the shiniest, most armed warship in europe, but not if theres say only 2 of them and only 1 available at a time, its a balance.
For example we need 5-6 Amphibs, if we splurge on armament that number will almost inevitably come down.
Do UK really need 6 large amphibs?
If we want to sustain the LRGs and have other availble for other tasks yes.
Realistically that’s only 2, possibly 3 available for deployment at anytime. I think is easy to make a case for 2 or 3 being the minimum requirement for any amphibious mission.
Current situation is Albion and Bulwark in Devonport, Mounts Bay in Falmouth, Cardigan Bay scrambled to Med, and Argus and Lyme Bay in Singapore, If there’s say a big hurricane in Caribbean, what happens?
The thing is Bays are aren’t amphibious warfare ships but are as their original name quiet succinctly says ‘landing ship logistical’. The MoD(N) changing names their category to LSD(A) to bump up numbers is an old trick.
The Albions are assault ships. Their main battery being their EMF. Their job is to move troops and equipment from ship to shore as fast as possible.
It is rather like how SPG get call tanks when they are anything but tanks. They may look the same but their purpose is different.
The original intention back in the 1990s was to have an LPH, LPD, and 2 x LSL in a group and for there to be two groups. We had one LPH built on the cheap and eventually sold one of LSL.
Ok, i can see their use in a Falklands situation and NATO numbers.
The concept is two littoral response groups each with two ships, which means far higher availability than rule of three, even with 6 ships. The concept goes on to creating a littoral strike group by merging the two smaller LRGs, so you can’t get away with having them available only separately. Finally they can work with CSG for an expiditionary force, and the implications of that need a lot of thinking through for both CSG and LSG.
It’s interesting but not really appropriate for mrss maybe if type 32 had a big budget I might be more interested. Cool fantasy ship though
Not sure how many people will have noticed this but it is interesting that Dragonfire is way up on the mast there.
Is would be quite an easy way to extend the range and usefulness against small boats that would otherwise be hidden behind waves and sea spray.
Overall I have always liked the ‘Amphib frigate’ concept and it has obviously been taken to an extreme here, more of a Cruiser as AlexS said. Would be lovely if we bought this or a variant and got Babcock to build 8 of them for both MRSS and T32 but with all of the waffle about non-complex warships I doubt it.
I dont like the way both Phalanx CIWS as well as two of the autocannon are bunched quite close together in the design with no ability to target directly fore or aft, your relying on the frontal Dragonfire alone to cover the forward arc without the ship manoeuvring, though the aft laser has almost 320 degree arc. But it is a healthy defensive armament with 2 Dragonfire, 2 Phalanx, 3 autocannon, 2? countermeasure launchers (I cant make out what one of the turrets on the forecastle is) the large guns as well as 32 missile cells.
I’m not sure what you mean by 4 CIWS? As far as I can tell there are on the renders:
That is a far more comprehensive fitout than any ship we currently operate, especially with the use of a 76 (probably 57) as a secondary gun. The Italians are relying entirely on a 76mm as CIWS on their new PPA OPVs (look them up, they’re really interesting) because that type of medium-calibre gun are having a lot of guided ammunition developed that should be able to hit missiles out to 10km. The Italians are using DART, which is radio beam-riding and Raytheon are developing MAD-FIRES, which uses semi-active radar for the 57mm and has a rocket booster. Video on DART here, it uses 2011 graphics but otherwise very informative:
youtube.com/watch?v=mfqqsv7oinU
Nothing developed for 57mm can’t go bigger. The reverse is not always true.
Hence 127mm & 76mm Volcano exists. 57mm Volcano would be a waste of time. 76mm or 127mm MAD-FIRES would work (if someone wanted to put up the money).
MAD-FIRES could easily be scaled to fit the 76 or 127, as the effector is a sabot. So you could keep the dart at its current size, but scale up the sabot petals. Or you could scale up the dart. Either method would radically increase the max engagement range.
I’m afraid MAD-FIRES appears to be dead…
No mention or funding for it since 2021 in DARPA accounts, which usually means a programme has been discretely terminated.
Thats also what we are doing on the Type 31, 2x40mm and 1x57mm rapid fire naval guns as short range air defence, no CIWS in the plans as approved though 1x Dragonfire looks to be being added after the announcement Dragonfire was being rolled out to the frigate fleet over the next 5 years. The Bofors 40mm have programmable rounds and a range of upto 12.5 km.
That 12.5km thing is only in surface attack under specific circumstances. It only has the accuracy to hit e.g. missiles out to 7km.
For T31 I think two Dragonfire will be fitted on the beams like Phalanx is on T26. There isn’t room in a space where it makes sense to only fit one.
+ 8 cells on the hanger roof
Thanks, hadn’t seen that until I saw the Naval News video.
Seems to be for EXLS whereas mk41 is for quad packing and anti surface missiles.
Naval News also explains Steller’s concept in much more detail, where it makes much more sense.
It talks of progressively rolling back A2/AD using the ship’s missiles, then commando insertion and raids, to the point where a full scale landing using the stern ramp at a port or MexeFlote otherwise is possible.
Speed is important. Or more high economical cruising speed. American amphibians are designed to do 500 miles plus per day. It means the USN USMC ARG is only a few days sailing away from a crisis or a potential crisis.
The design for me fails because of aviation facilities. I think a full length flight deck would be preferable. I think the RN is looking for a fast mini-LHA with fast LC’s on davits. It won’t get such ships. It will end up with slow LPD’s.
LC’s (slow ones but……….) on davits…..
Nowhere have i seen the RN looking for full flight deck amphibs for MRSS
Indeed, we split with the Dutch because they want lightly armed through deck and we want (relatively) heavily armed LPD style.
I don’t think the Dutch will go for trough deck. It seems with their desire for OPV+Amphib will be more like Damen crossover.
I found this a few weeks ago and when translated to English it explains the doctrine difference and a Dutch concept that was presented to their parliament:
marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Meer-details-Amfibische-Transportschepen-090424
Thanks
I have entertained the thought that three or four large through deck vessels would be better than six medium size MRSS – as with the three Mistral class of the French Navy – although that would make it harder to maintain two permanent LRGs.
This would give much better aviation facilities, with two benefits:
Any kind of contested landing seems super unlikely. If you are doing an uncontested landing, why not be in a helicopter and have so much more speed and flexibility of landing site? A LHD gives more options here. A through-deck platform gives you the ability to support fixed-wing UAVs, something that can only become more important.On another note, it looks like the proposed design means that neither the 76mm or Phalanx could fire on aircraft coming towards the front of the ship?
With the ramp, I’d wonder how long it takes for multiple vessels to be manoeuvred and ‘single file’ out..
If LRGs werent a requirement and the budget was higher then perhaps fewer LHDs would do the job. But as it stand this is probably more than the budget will afford, and tbh i dont think we could make good use of an LHD with the aviation assets we have, Couple of Merlins and WIldcats would be the sum of the air wing, certainly no specialist aircraft for the RM.
Also flat tops generally require more crew.
Operating any aircraft required more crew. If the flight deck on the Rottedam went full length it would require no more crew AND WOULD BE A LOT SAFER.
Making broad generalisations you super power? Or is it just lack of knowledge and experience in the field mean that’s all you can do?
If you want to make the most out of a full flight deck and presumably hangar deck vessel, you’re going to have more crew for that role than you would on a 2 spot flight deck, youve got more landing spots, more movement and more aircraft.
And even forgetting crew, we already know some requirements which make a full flight deck an unlikely option.
LHD usually due to increase in aviation capacity have less space for troops.
So it depends what you want.
There are a host of options to consider.
What you don’t have to do is fall into the trap of thinking a full length flight deck means a LHD/A or indeed the requirement to fill a hangar with aircraft or indeed a large ship.
Even if you only had a flight of Junglies and some Wildcats operations would be greatly eased with a full length deck.
There are sound reasons why navies moved away from this…
BAE Systems LHD. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/amphibious-vessels
As I said above something about 12,000 tonnes would do. No need to replace Ocean.
It is about mass and making the venture worthwhile. Two Merlin aren’t worth it. You would need 4 to 6 to cover all eventualities.
With more deck space chinook or apache could be options. Or the Proteus UAV in quantity. Or even MQ9B STOL.
Or, most importantly, UAVs we haven’t even thought of yet.
I completely understand this is not responding to the mrss brief…
The BAE systems lhd looks interesting.
Impressive design, although a T31 style armament is more appropriate/ affordable.
The 127mm is unnecessary, the RN isn’t going to endanger a ship like this to provide NGS when CAS can be provided by helicopters, drones or land-attack missiles can be used. So 58mm and 40mm Bofors like the T31, definitely for small-surface craft and air-cover. I think these still fit with the RN “non-complex warship” requirement.
Ideally CAMM/ Sea Ceptor too, essential in my opinion but it might cross the RN’s complex/non-complex line. Unless Sea Ceptor is provided as a containerised system, using PODS. Essentially added and removed when in port like the Phalanxes are. However Phalanx has its own radar…
Oto Melara 127mm with Vulcano ammo have around 100km range. Can be resupplied at sea and takes much less space than a missile.
Yeh but were not operating Oto melara 127, weve already picked up the BAE 5 inch
Should be possible to adapt Vulcano.
BAE 5” can already fire Vulcano
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sas-2019/2019/05/sas-2019-bae-systems-vulcano-precision-guided-munition-for-naval-5-inch-155mm-guns/
Intresting, will have to see what we pick up, havent heard of anything so far apart from the standard i guess.
And it’s performance taking out incoming missiles/ aircraft by comparison to Sea Ceptor?
Vulcano is land attack, I think he was comparing it to a cruise missile like NSM.
DART is the subcalibre round for missile defence, or MAD-FIRES if you are talking 57mm.
DART is available for 76, not 127mm. Vulcano is land attack as Sailorboy says. but i have been defending that a 127mm Vulcano/Dart mix would be an option to destroy typical medium/large drones at 40ish km.
I also wonder, it would have to resist to acceleration G’s if an active radar could not be put into a 127mm sub caliber round with canards.
Pretty sure DART is SAR/IR rather than active, which would make that easier.
Leonardo do say, I think, that the round can be scaled up, as do Raytheon for MAD-FIRES and BAE for ORKA.
I like the concept of the guided shell because it bridges the gap between missiles like CAMM and CIWS (RIM-116 is just too expensive for what it does) so that there is an even layering of defence from CAMM 0-25km to guided shells (10-15km for AA in 57mm to 76 range) to CIWS (5km Bofors mk40).
With UAVs especially having the shells is a cheaper method of knocking them down safely without risking a failure in the last line of defence.
So you’re advocating for…
• a munition that doesn’t exist, namely 127mm DART for air-defence
• a munition, Vulcano 127mm, for a role that these ships aren’t going to engage in, namely NGS.
Yes and Yes, but why you say that NGS would not be one of mission for these ships?
First, if you do an amphibious operation these ships will be present, second in amphibious operation NGS is often a requirement. So that liberates other ships to be deployed into better place to do escort operations.
• So you do want the MoD to blow a huge amount of cash to develop a bespoke munition just for the RN… which T31 would you cancel to pay for that?
• The ships will be used for raiding operations. Support is better provided by drones and helicopters rather than by an irreplaceable ship offshore that should be focussing its defences completely on not being mission-killed by drones or anti-ship missiles.
1- the munition can hit medium to large drone at altitude without spending huge amounts of cash firing missiles. It will be useful for everyone, not just RN.
2 – Are you saying that the ships will be more than 100km from coast to land their amphibious assets?
1 – Just because something is useful, doesn’t mean others are going to buy it. If there was a market for it, the manufacturers would have already developed it.
2 – It’s possible and might become necessary, but more likely they will withdraw from close to shore after the raiding force had been landed. Given how cheap and widely available anti-ship missiles and drones are they are not going to hang around inviting an attack.
Do you consider 80km distance close to shore?
I agree with other commentators that ships like this won’t go anywhere near the beach so heavier guns are of no value – it just needs a self-defence fit. The loss of LCU capacity is a major reset and there’s no sign of mexeflotes so I think this is too much of a leap if you can’t even land a 3 ton truck organically. I also agree that there’s not enough aviation capability – the RAF are all-in on great lumbering Chinooks and there’s no chance that the RN can get away with just abandoning the army and dedicating the shipping to just RM company size raids. Ellida seems more realistic so far but it would be interesting to see companies showing the common hull but fitted out differently for different roles – more aviation capability, more LCU capability, more MCMV/USV optimised etc.
I’ve always imagined that two ships of this type of design, would make for much better replacements for the Albion’s. To act almost entirely as a self contained force to deliver Littoral Strike. with three Ellida type ships in the RFA to bring on the follow on force in a more placid environment.
Theres benefits to having different classes for different roles but MRSS is generally trying to standardize on one.
I understand that but its a bit of a flawed premise. Ellida is a good design of ship, but unfortunately we don’t have the escorts to seriously support them in a Littoral Strike role. Especially LS South.
If all are given basic defenses, perhaps just medium guns, with radars capable of taking POD sea ceptor, it would be sufficient enough for them to deploy alone. Theyre already deploying alone with minimal defenses so i dont imagine itll change much.
Unfortunately, i agree but if the Navy is truly going to invest money into LS then this is a good option. Reduce the requirements for Ellida from 6 to 3 and bin the type 32. Besides self defence this design also allows for organic fires in the form of Missiles and NGS.
This confuses me, as it’s not really any more multi role than a T26
surely we should be looking at an upgraded Karel doorman type ship that really is multi role.
i know people want specialist ships, but we simply can’t crew them, they end up alongside, primed for the chopping block.
take a look at the specs of Karel doorman, Damen crossover and Davy yard G-LAM and see what you get. One thing that needs to happen is these ships need their own air defence with 128 missiles.
what roles are we looking for the fleet
C1: T26 – Global Combat ship – Escort only (reuse mission bay to add more VLS) turning it into a missile ship, do not use for constabulary duties.
C2: T31 Global Mission Ship – multi role escort and constabulary
C:3 T32 Multi Mission Ship – ASF – general purpose multi role upgrade of T31
after this we need 6 FFTs & the rest could be Karel Doorman style multi role logistics ships, these would be a game changer for the RN with a few tweaks imo
Id hardly call this a specialist ship. Also 128 missiles, no idea where youre pulling that number from but no chance.
Theyre not going to rip out the mission bay on T26 for more VLS, its multi role for a reason, we dont have enough ships for them to be solely dedicated to escort.
And theyre not going to build Karel doorman, not only are they massive ships well outside of the scale MRSS is looking at, but theyre also an old design, and i guarantee that MRSS will be a from scratch design. And i dont see how theyre a game changer, theyre not really good at any particular role, theyre way bigger than we actualy need for the amount of RM assets we have.
This concept has 32 cells, if the missiles were all quad packed that would be 128 missiles, alongside both a mid sized shore bombardment gun and a large dual purpose, also carrying twice the CIWS of a Type 45 and a third more than the QE class carriers.
And having a landing craft embarkation capacity halfway between the Bay class and the Albion class with hangers for two mid sized helicopters or a deck parked Chinook. Finally with the speed to keep up with a carrier battle group… hard to think of this concept as anything other than multipurpose.
Using the name Fearless and level of armament and other kit, suggests these could well be HMS and heading towards 400 crew of Albion. Is that feasible? One solution is to keep the design, but not fully fit some out so they are RFA initially. Ships then flip between HMS and RFA, depending on kit currently installed, over time..
I mean this is just a concept by a company vying for the contract. But i dont doubt that a requirement for designs will be lower crew, probably sub 200 if they can. Which is feasible with modern designs
First Sea Lord was widely reported as wanting the MRSS to have a crew of 130 or less.
Not the best source, but the only one I could find quickly without a paywall.
https://www.gbnews.com/news/royal-navy-machine-powered-future-warship-crew-reduce
Thanks
Utter rubbissh.. Okay, not a bad idea. Needs a standard gun (is it 5 inch) , a wet dock at the back, proper RAS rigs and wet and dry store capibilty. This is exactly where I predict the RFA / RN to go – a ship crewed for running by cheap and cheerful RFA with all the war fighting manned by matelots. If that’s where you want to go, this is the vessel
Im pretty sure RAS isnt part of the requirement, especially if they go for smaller vessels than previously.
And as weve seen with FSSS they arent really doing mixed role resupply ships anymore, its either stores or fuel, not both.
I love the out of the box thinking going on here, a new avant garde design concept to meet the requirements of getting smaller groups of Marines ashore from greater distance at higher speeds.
As many of the previous comments have noted though, its not really a “multi-role support ship” is it? Do we have a problem with the RN’s defined requirements for MRSS? Is it just semantics, we have gone with the MRSS monica, but the requirements are for a “Littoral Strike Ship” which is what this design seems to be (NGS gun, VLS etc.).
Does the announcement of “at least 3” MRSS mean we could actually get perhaps 3 MRSS based on something like BMT Ellida – well dock for flexibility, large hospital, containerized logistics, great for peace time disaster response, with a “war role” of stand off USV, UUSV and drone mother ship?
Followed by 3 more “fighty” ships like this?
So LSG’s would have one of each, with one of each in maintenance / post-maintenance FOST programme.
We would loose the commonality benefits of 6 of exactly the same type of ship, but gain in flexibility???
I just have trouble with the whole idea that light amphibious war is something new because it was what the RM was already doing.
Nothing new about amphibians having missiles or guns either.
I would rather have 3 with a solid propulsion system than 6 cheapies.
Singaporean Endurance class with guns and missiles and everything…
Ref “I just have trouble with the whole idea that light amphibious war is something new because it was what the RM was already doing.”
What is new, is our acknowledgement that we cannot / will not provide the budget required for the past level of Amphib capability, because Albion & Bulwark, Ocean and Bay’s are too vulnerable with slow ship to shore connectors for the “over the beach” capability in anything remotely like a ‘contested’ environment.
Rightly or wrongly the current FCF doctrine is “light” – raiding, Special Ops, SF enablers, ISTAR blah blah blah, and providing littoral “force protection” to Point Class Ro-Ro’s delivering an Army Boxer brigade to a friendly port within “road march distance of the action. So, yes no new innovative force or conops, but perhaps the need for innovative ship designs that can provide some value for this “light” amphibious capability.
If we can’t afford it why is the MoD going to build 6 new dock ships that can carry at least one Chinook. (That’s bizarre on its own….)
I mentioned above the winning the beach so that a heavier force can be landed. I have also mentioned that where amphibious warfare means ‘transporting’ troops by sea not every instance of ‘transporting’ troops by sea is amphibious warfare.
I have also given examples to illustrate that raids and SF ops aren’t the same thing. Lofton Islands 500 men from 7 ships. Op Frankton 13 men from submarines. Not the same. Completely different modes of operation.
All you have done is repackaged what I said and told it back to me.
We seem to be in the same predicament that the Victorian navy was in, post “warrior”. The tech was changing very rapidly, no major naval actions had been fought barring one to draw any conclusions from, the shape of future naval warfare was not established and so we ended up with a string of odd ships all trying to get the tech on board and double guess what was best.
Same here. I can understand the usefulness of a well deck but the restrictions it brings are very limiting in an assault.
I would say that we need the right (,(!) Type of vessel for our main sphere of operation which has to be the north sea/Europe. I like the proposed new vessel. Its essentially self escorting, nippy, can deliver troops and light vehicles/ equipment via the novel fast ..landing craft…. showcased elsewhere, and can be useful in other theatres on its own. Two of them would be a great LRG or whatever just on their own.
Getting heavy stuff on to shore or another port requires heavy lift ships, Bays or whatever. A mix as proposed by Jed has my vote.
It’s a step too far for any government who will look to simply replacing assets with the simplest cheapest cargo ship armed with a Phalanx.
AA
Except now we can’t churn out experimental vessels to work out which ideas are rubbish and which are worth going along with.
If it is to cross operate with USN/USMC, then the hangar & flight deck, need to be large enough for CH-53K &V-22.
Carrying 1 Chinook is a requirement I’ve heard, their rotors don’t fold so I presume that would leave enough room for other helos.
Ōsumi-class tank landing ship is about 13,000 tons full load.
The French BIP-8 design study……
A lot of talk about merging T32 & MRSS. Maybe build something like this for the T32 role, retaining the full frigate armament, but build only 4 of them. Then use the MRSS budget to build 4 similarly sized LPDs (very approximately a Dokdo-class equivalent).
Gives a lot of options from a single vessel, up to an LRG of T31, T32 & MRSS
We are heading towards the Absalon class…….
Yes, but their role is for “Bornholm, Faeroes, Greenland coast” type operations.
Would not the RN ambition be quite different scale
A different scale being 170m rather than 140m.
The doctrine is almost the same.
That’s my point though. The MoD(N) are telling us the RM, a light amphibious warfare force, is becoming a light amphibious warfare force……..
I love the design & it’s good for FCF operations.
My concern is what’s is the likely mission? and how does MRSS achieve the objective? What’s the impact? Deterrence effect?
I can’t see this design doing anything other than raiding, special ops & pretty much everything other than taking land & enabling follow on forces.
Unless the ship has serious firepower like this design – what real influence can be achieved on land?
Even with serious FP the ship can only increase the effectiveness of temporary ops. It maybe possible just enough to secure a port but then what?
It seems that MRSS is potentially really going to limit the UK to a very tiny bit part in peer to peer conflict.
The Commandos are great operators but US SF has more manpower than the British Army! I believe that’s without including units such as Marine Recon.
So I’m not sure in that scenario what it does Vs the Aircraft Carriers with F35 guided by Special forces teams?
If we find ourselves in a conflict where a significant land contribution is required & Amphibious access is the only or best means to deploy it – there doesn’t even seem to be contingency built in?
If pure FCF excellent, but fully replacing the combined well docks of 3 Bays & 2 LPDs it’s not really doing that? An Ellida type design would, but you lose the speed to turn up asap, which is part of FCF to try & nip things in bud.
My question is what is being asked of ship designers & are the RMs seeing the whole picture.
This is a decision the forces are potentially stuck with for the next 30yrs. I think the design could be improved by increasing the size of the helicopter landing spots & lift capability of the off ramp well dock. If 45-50 ton this would allow Boxer/Ajax. The issue then would still ship to shore connectors – Wyvern Hovercraft?
Worryingly again there’s no mention of an LCU replacement. ????
But probably expecting too much from armed forces & a country that seems to lack the ability to think big. It’s one great concept if FCF are calling the shots
But therein lays the rub “If we find ourselves in a conflict where a significant land contribution is required & Amphibious access is the only or best means to deploy it – there doesn’t even seem to be contingency built in?”
What would that conflict be and where? As you note the US has more SF / SOF in Special Operations Command than we have personnel in our entire Army so where do we think we could provide a “significant land contribution” ? Even at the height of post Falklands amphib capability, 2 LPD, 1 LHD, 4 ALSL and 6 (?) Point Class Ro-ro, they could not deliver a “significant” land force? 3 Brigade RM only being a Brigade, and even that amount of shipping not being able to carry a Division, and now of course, even against a potential foe like the Houthis, with an all out effort, could we get that those ships into a beach to land a force? Could our entire current force, including a CV full of F35 suppress a non “near peer” equipped with AShM, ballistic missiles, drones, 155/152mm artillery and modern air defences?
If the answer is no, then what is the point of well docks and bigger ship to shore connectors? If the tasking is flexible disaster / humanitarian response perhaps a lease of something like the Prevail Partners MRV is the way to go, steel beach, mexe-floats and motion compensated cranes?
Which gets us back to your point, if the FCF is raiding in the Baltic, or Norwegian far north or something as part of a shooting war with Russia, then perhaps its not about taking and holding land, but about ISR and sneaky beaky, and the potential for land attack missiles in this design concepts Mk41 VLS ?????
Taking and holding land is the Army’s job. The Royal Marines never had the numbers to do that. To use that awful term this is about ‘sea basing’.
But even raiding will take helicopters and landing craft. As I said somewhere here the Lofton Islands raid in WW2 took 500 personnel landed from 7 ships.
Penny packet sized teams are special forces operations. And a raid will more often than not take place after a SF recce,
Which is kind of my point currently with LPD, LSD and Ro-Ro the RN could deploy the army with Fearless they can’t deliver anything over potentially 30t which excludes lots of Army vehicles including Boxer. Therefore Fearless equals SF/FCF upgrade but complete loss of anything else.
“I can’t see this design doing anything other than raiding, special ops & pretty much everything other than taking land & enabling follow on forces.”
Correct that’s what it’s for. We’re not going to be doing any D Day re-enactments.
If performing sealift, such as reinforcing europe, then we’re using the Points to carry Challenger/ Boxer/ Ajax to friendly ports.
So why bother? What can FCF do with these that they can’t do with T31, T26 & potentially T32?
It is all very fuzzy. The RM have always been a light amphibious raiding force. During WW2, Korea, and Suez the RM’s job was to win the beach so the heavier Army formations could pass through them and then after them the necessary logistics. But the Royal Marines never had the numbers, On D-Day they were Marines on the beaches but they were out numbered by specially trained soldiers. Even though the Falklands War was a brigade sized landing it was still very much a manoeuvre warfare operation. In operations and training in Cold War Norway it was more of the same. There they practised raiding in landing craft (with a desperate need for something faster and more heavily armed.)
So yes I don’t understand how the light amphibious warfare specialist Royal Marines can be returning to light amphibious operations. But even that require mass and a good number of fast ship to shore connectors.
The confusion for many comes from the simple fact that they nothing about the Army’s maritime operations.
For a very long time the British Army operated a goodly number of their own ships. And beyond them also has ships operated for them beyond the RN and RFA control.
For example this a Mk 8 LCT HMAV Abbeville……….
And the Army didn’t just operate LCT but specialist ships too such as ammunition carriers such as HMAV ST George………..
http://ships.rfanostalgia.org/var/albums/R%20M%20A%20S/ammo/St%20George.JPG?m=1399885548
Then there were ships operated for the Army by shipping lines. The Round Table class started off not as RFA’s but owned by the MoD operated for the Army Service Corp late RCL by the British India Steam Navigation Company. Their first years they were adorned in the traditional trooping livery of white/cream hulls with a blue band.
And before the jet age the War Department used trooping ships to move regiments and personnel around the Empire.
Anybody who talks about D-Day re-enactments other guff just doesn’t know what they are on about.
The purpose of studying history is to learn from it, not to slavishly repeat it as you would prefer. We’ve been in the 21st Century for over 20 years, when are you going to join us?
Thank you Stupid Sean as ever for your input.
Somebody must value it I am sure. Nobody here I am sure of that you boring little twerp.
And the Zoophiliac responds with insults that would be expected of a 5 year old in a schoolyard. But then they say those suffering dementia become very childlike…
Yet still he remains.
Found one! Sir Percival as operated by the British India Steam Navigation in the traditional trooping colour scheme.
All will be explained when my last comment has passed through moderation.
I do like the idea of a porcupine ship letting slip the dogs of war, and this would be the design. We know many slow hulking Russian dock ships have been sunk or damaged relatively easily by Ukraine with weopons that should have been stopped. Add to that a lack of air dominance escorts available to us, and I begin to warm to this design. However no well dock and lack of helicopters landing platform will render this a non starter I suspect but still interesting.
With insufficient helicopter provision and no well deck this is not a multi role vessel that can genuinely do amphibious ops. It looks rather like a poor man’s San Antonio class with the aft flight deck and hangar cut back ie the missing 28m of hull. An increase in speed is welcome but something just north of 22kn would be fine and a considerable uplift on our current vessels.
Not perhaps of military necessity but as for aesthetics I can only say I thought it was ugly all round and took a step further than the old Tiger and Blake after conversion, which were just ugly at ‘one’ end.
Is helicopter borne amphibious landings dead in the age of cheap AA though? Emphasis is being put on the landing ships and insertion of lead elements and resupply may switch to more stealthy and attritable drone based platforms. Ship borne resupply is already moving from helicopter to drones.
What would you call it? if it had a well deck you could possibly call it a through deck cruiser?
LOL
With its displacement, armament and role… an Assault Cruiser?
Through deck means aircraft carrier.
Assault doesn’t fit the brief
Strike Cruiser has been suggested but that sounds like a missile platform
If I were MoD it would be a “Littoral Interdiction Cruiser”
I don’t know, I would call it a “Littoral Cruiser”.
Its replacing the Amphibious Assault Ships hence Assault (I dont like MRSS) too few missiles for Littoral Strike plus the speed to keep up with a carrier group doesn’t really mesh with a brown water Littoral combat ship.
The concept discussed at CNE suggested MRSS will be expected to work in higher threat environments than previously envisaged. Perhaps Steller are closer to the new thinking than an Ellida recycled from an earlier time.
Amphibious warships are fought like any other warship. Their EMF is their main armament.
They are not just ‘trucks’.
Amphibious warfare involves the movement of troops by sea. But not every movement of troops by sea is amphibious warfare.
The Bays are only being pushed forward now because of lacking of funding not because they are an ideal.
After reading most of the posts here it seems to come down to a few direct questions.
It does seem that there is no “This is what we want the ship to do” so companies are all coming up with completly diffrent ideas.
There are three possiblites or tasks that the future MRSS could do, each of the tasks means a diffrent type of vessel.
Task 1, to operate independently and be able to act as a mothership for Commando Insertion Craft, USVs, UUVs, XLUUVS etc with the ability to insert Royal Marine raiding forces up to 120men. This mean a ship like the Damen Crossover to the Steller Fearless type
Task 2. to operate with an escort, to be able to act as a mothership, land up to 250 men with heavy equipment and stores, be able to transfer fuel and solid stores in ship to ship transfer (two RAS portions one port/ one starboard. This means a well deck and two helicopter spots.BMT Ellida type
Task 3a. to operate with an escort, to act as a mothership, be able to land a battalion strenght battlegroup with all it equipment up to MBTs. This means a LHD with 6-8 landing spots, ski jump plus hanger for helicopters/VSTOL aircraft (10 Merlins, 6 F35Bs and 2 LCACs or other landing craft). HMAS Canberra type vessel
3b. the same as 3a except no VSTOL capability and four landing spots (hanger for 9 Merlins, 4 Apaches) and a well deck for 1 LCAC and 2 LCMs. To be able to operate independently, which would mean 32-48 mk41 tubes, a 57mm-5in main gun and 2-4 40mm guns. Not as yet designed or built but would be more of a Sea Control Ship in concept or helicopter cruiser with well deck.
So until the question is answered what are the MRSS vessels to do there are many solutions. As an example Task 1. If the ship is to be able to operate with a task group be detached insert the Royals, pick up the Royals and return to the task group then a Damen Crossover/ Babcock T32 would do the job. If the ship is to operate on its own for long period of time then you will need a bigger ship for stores, RM training etc so the Fearless concept come into its own. However, if you need a ship to get into an area such as Northern Norway in a hot war situation land a battlegroup and get out quickly whilst able to look after herself without putting any other ship at risk you need ship concept 3b.
If money was not an issue my ideal solution would be to have 6 of the Babcock/Damen design for the T32 and 3 of the 3b concept vessels (Albion, Bulwark, Ocean replacement) for the Amphibious group under the White ensign and 4-8 Ellida type vessels as replacements for the Waves, Fort Rossilie, Bays, Argus, Diligence and forward deployed base ships under the RFA.
For me with a little more budget without going to woo-woo I think a class of large fast dock ships to follow the duty carrier about on its annual cruise which would take along a reinforced commando with it. Base a company and TAC HQ and say 8 Junglies and a clutch of Wildcat in the carrier. The balance of the commando in the LPD. And a class of ‘super Bays’ to carry a cavalry element, light engineering capability, and a vehicle based light AAW capability. I think we would need 4 of both classes. So one pair could follow the carrier in its task group. Whilst another pair could conduct some training in Norway.
Have wondered whether a ship like this could have a heat-treated flight deck for use with vertically operating F-35bs. Sure, they can’t carry as much payload/fuel but then operating closer to shore from a vessel like this might negate that somewhat or offer more localised air defence / strike options.
Even better…
Lot’s of options………
My favourite though daft is the aviation support ship based on the hull of the USN Spurance class.
It’s an interesting design, one I’m not convinced will get picked up but nonetheless. Jack of all trades, master of none springs to mind. I’ve not heard of the design house before, could they just be trying to make a splash in the market place at an opportune time?
This is very heavily armed for an RFA ship, which I understand our amphibs have been for quite some time now- so would be a departure from the current way of manning these presumably.
As far as capabilities go, the main MRSS scope seemed to be stating/implying a well deck (this doesn’t have) and a flight deck suitable for Chinook (maybe, but not sure one will fit in the hangar). I’m a little sceptical about the well deck myself, as it adds a lot of cost and we’re currently in the process of significantly reducing our wider capabilities in terms of what might benefit from one. RM are now raiders, so don’t need to land in large numbers and certainly not larger vehicles. Unless we see a greater amphibious landing role for the Army’s medium weight forces (which I’d actually quite like to see), then the amphibious ships we currently have and are scoped in the MRSS might be more than we need. The more limited amphibious capability that this design gives may be enough. But I would agree with other posters that the flight deck and hangar are too small, even for the lighter role.
As far as the weaponry goes, they’ve gone for kitchen sink and that’s fine. But it won’t stay. I don’t see a need for 127 mm for NGS, it’s too risky for anything bigger than a corvette. I’d rather see options for mounting a launcher for GMLRS-ER and Precision Strike Missile, both of which the Army is looking to order anyway. As others have said, T31 gun fit should do the job. As far as VLS go, they’re very expensive- and I’m struggling to see what they’d be putting in them. This isn’t fitted for AAD, so not Aster; we don’t use TLAM or SM-series missiles, so not them either; FC/ASW? I don’t see an application on this ship that couldn’t be better filled by NSM box launchers and the aforementioned GMLRS launcher. The advantage of having VLS on escorts is that they’re zipping here and there providing support where they’re needed- and hard to find and kill themselves. This vessel will be sitting in one place for relatively long periods of time presumably- if it’s supporting an amphibious op or something. I suppose CAMM would be the other obvious choice if we kept them, but I’d go for the specialist launchers rather than Mk41.
I’m conflicted by the design, but ultimately I don’t think the RN will go for something that’s such a mash-up of two things they’ve asked for in one.
Will be interesting to see what other designs surface!
These are to replace,
RN
• HMS Albion
• HMS Bulwark
RFA
• RFA Lyme Bay
• RFA Mounts Bay
• RFA Cardigan Bay
• RFA Argus
So the MRSS could be either, or even split between the two branches. But the brief refers to “non-complex warships” which points towards RN. The big clue will be where they are built, RFAs can be built abroad (eg Tide) but RNs are U.K. built.
Fair point, I’d really just assumed that they were all originally RFA.
Personally, I think one can be turned over to the FCO to be used for disaster response in the Caribbean and elsewhere- even if crewed by the RFA. It’s surely a diplomatic rather than military function and should be funded as such. That’d hopefully allow for a minimum of four, whether the other 3 are RN or RFA.
I am very much in favour of domestic build- whether “complex” or not, that was only ever a UK government/MOD term to justify cheaper international procurement of non-complex hulls. If we’re going to take the NSBS seriously, I think that the only reason we should be considering foreign-build of vessels for the UK government as a whole is if the shipyards we have either don’t have the capacity or capability to deliver, or if it’s so urgent we need to buy an existing platform. If Babcock, BAE, H&W and CL are all busy and full, then sure spend some money abroad. I don’t think it’s sustainable to add any more shipyards in the UK, but those should always be busy in my opinion.
“Complex” doesn’t determine whether a ship is built domestically or not, it’s whether it’s classified as a warship or not.
I would hope the Naval Service bills the FCO for any humanitarian operations undertaken, such as hurricane relief. It also doesn’t require a dedicated vessel.
With T26, T31, and FSS in various states I think it will be difficult to build the MRSS in the U.K. without delaying their delivery. However they could be used to keep existing yards busy once the frigate contracts are fulfilled and while waiting for the T83 destroyer order.
Looks interesting for the littorial response\strike role. Potentially capable is escorting itself in lower risk areas which would save on escorts.
Can’t see how it can be a MRSS, nor where the RN crew come from (rather than RFA).
Fearless MRSS by Steller Systems (youtube.com)
I thought Ben Key had already said that MRSS would be a non complex warship with a small crew of < 130. This looks anything but non complex – full suite of guns, missiles and sensors, high top speed and a crew need much bigger than 130.
If future RM operations are going to rely more on helicopter delivery from distance, the aviation capability is much too small.
It does look a capable and flexible design but it wouldn't be cheap.
All
The one thing I believe that we can all agree on here on NL is that the modern threat environment for any “amphibian” is now a very very hostile one……….
Hence the huge debate (directly above) about what defensive weapons might be needed.
(i.e. Ukraine, a nation without any effective navy back in Feb 2022, has since scored very many direct hits on the Russian Black Sea Fleet: thus causing severe rising damp in many commie hulls. I anticipate that Russian’s Black Sea fleet commander will – probably fairly soon and also “probably entirely accidentally” – fall out of a sealed upper floor window of a very-tall Moscow apartment block).
CONOPS
This very-hostile modern littoral battlespace leads towards using either one – of only two – possible CONOPS (Concept of Operations) by the near-future RMC / FCF:
Anywhere in the middle – the wide coastal zone from half a mile out to (at least) thirty miles out – is the very-worst of all possible worlds. That wide coastal zone is where any UK assault ship would be able to be targeted by a mix of both long-range and short-range enemy weapons (i.e. which Russia, China, Iran and North Korean all have plenty of)
Which one of these two techniques (CONOPS) – either close-in OR far-out – is best in any circumstance will depend wholly and solely as to just two factors:
My own personal view is that, in a very high threat environment, launching any commando raid (or any first wave of a larger assault: sustained) only from a modern Landing Ship Dock would give those ships a very appropriate acronym:
Stellar
To be fair to Stellar, as the editors of NL quite right imply in their commentary, this is “a Quite Good First Stab” at an MRSS design. It is about the right size and shape and they have certainly put some good initial thinking into self-defence. It is a bit of a “porcupine”!
However, overall, this proposal from Stellar shows exactly the very same type of very muddled thinking that was very evident in their proposals, sent into DASA last year, for a fast covert commando insertion craft (i.e. see the feature in Navy Lookout just a couple of weeks ago)
Thus Stellar are now showing (here /above) their MRSS launching their supposedly long range covert commando insertion craft very close to the shore. BUT = If one has an effective long range covert insertion craft (note 1), why does the one then need the MRSS to approach anywhere close to the beach?
(Note 1. a claim which I severely doubted two weeks ago….because they will run out of sick bags long before they travel 150 miles in that small craft.)
Thus Stellar have completely confused the two very-different CONOPS
This ship has neither enough aviation capability for engaging a long-range assault: nor is it carrying enough of the heavy stuff to justify the ship going anywhere close to the heavily-defended beach.
Overall, they have simply not though it all through properly: and they are not the only ones…
Damien and Ellida Proposals
Unfortunately, all of the present Damien and Ellida designs now “on the table” suffer from the very same type of very muddled thinking as Stellar (above) = trying to add more aviation facilities onto what is essentially always going to be a very traditional design for a very large and very slow dock ship.
That type of botched-up compromise is, however, exactly what is happening within the MRSS programme: when the RN has its new ships being designed by international design committee, a committee which includes several senior officers who simply don’t know what and how they need “to to the business”. Therefore the overall ship design become “a fudge”
Furthermore, by MOD/RN only talking to the incumbents (incompetents), it appears to me that already, one of the key objectives of the MRSS programme is to parcel the work out around the two “big boys” in the UK naval shipbuilding market (hint: both beginning with a letter “B”)
Therefore, overall, Stellar must be commended = simply for showing us all that there is still some innovative thinking still out there…
HADR
Next, when it comes to the delivery of civilian humanitarian aid and disaster relief: why does one need to use either an expensive warship or a naval auxiliary?
A few very basic merchies – ones with a helideck and a crane and large medical facilities – would would do the HADR job very very nicely. Furthermore they could be tasked, and paid for, by the FCO. Those few ships would be called, in the FCO jargon, “soft power”——
A better way of Procuring the MRSS Programme
Furthermore, everybody (including above) is at present assuming that the MRSS program must buy only one very-homologous type of six identical ships. Simple question: WHY?
Trying to mix all the aviation and heavy logistics on one ship, especially one where a large well-dock takes up much of the available space internally – simply means an expensive compromise = compromising on absolutely everything.
A much-better bet for the RN MRSS programme would be to buy:
A 3+3 approach to buying the MRSS would give more sensible balance to the RN fleet and, crucially, give the RMC a far more flexible concept of operations.
Those six MRSS ships – of two very-different classes – would gives the RN/RMC, in each one of its two Littoral Response Groups:
Thus, afloat in just in one LRG – a small flotilla of three RN ships’ – would be one complete RMC/FCF battalion, with its own organic logistics and artillery, thus all able to act and move quickly as a very effective fighting unit.
Buying six new MRSS ships, of just two classes, would gives two LRGs always out on the water, and the third LRG in Devonport (having its mandatory tea-break).
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer) :
I just don’t think we will have the assets do it. As I have said many times now better to roll up everything into one task group: that is the large aviation ship, an LPD, escorts, one submarine, and logistics hull. And to ape as much as we can a USN USMC ARG. We have enough aircraft to do this now. It will be a decade before RAF / FAA F35b numbers are up to pretending to play ‘me too carrier strike’.
That would leave us with at least one frigate to push north to monitor anything Russian coming south. That is why a ninth T26 is needed and a sixth T31 (and all of them to be fitted out for ASW.)
Here’s the basic lack of logic in the overall FCF/MRSS thinking.
What is actually possible is raid / SF style ops,
As I have said up and down this comment stream. A ‘raid’ and a SF op aren’t the same thing. Again the raid on the Lofton Islands saw 500 personnel landed from 7 ships. Operation Frankton saw 13 Booties landed from submarines to conduct a SF op. Once more we are being told the light amphibious force called the Royal Marines is returning to be a light amphibious force, It makes no sense.
No they’re not the same thing, agreed. However they do have one thing in common which is that they are very limited duration operations, making use of minimal logistics.
If the future is insertion by air, a through deck design like Mistral or Ocean will be needed. But if money is tight and manpower even tighter, we could resurrect the abandoned plan to adapt POW to an amphibious role. We certainly won’t have enough F35s to operate both QE and POW as strike carriers for many years. MRSS would then be a vessel designed to support forces onshore once a beachhead has been secured., ie non complex with a small crew.
Until it is clear exactly what is expected of an MRSS, we can all only play fantasy fleets- rather like Steller.
There will come a time when there will only be one carrier in service with the other in deep refit. You would have two (or ideally three) air wings not to equip both carriers but so there is one deployed and one ashore resting, training etc. The latter provides reinforcement if the balloon goes up.
We already have just enough cabs to provide two air wings: 6 or so Junglies, a clutch of Wildcat, a brace of Pingers, Crowsnest, and say 12 Bravos.
Yes we are playing fantasy fleets. 🙂
Peter S
For starters, I will 110% agree with your comment:
“Until it is clear exactly what is expected of an MRSS, we can all only play fantasy fleets- rather like Steller.
However, your suggestion of converting an aircraft carrier, such as POW, to become a commando carrier is definitely not the right way to go…..
The operating tempo’s of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft are very different.
In any major warfighting operation, the QE aircraft carrier must always be 100% focused on providing continuous fighter cover (defensive air) and also conducting strike operations (offensive air). Those two are definitely full time jobs….24/7
Then, adding in a third one, also launching and recovering many helicopters with lots and lots of commandos on board, would either delay (or occasionally completely prevent) those two key aircraft missions from operating effectively.
Overall that creates a tactical situation of great complexity = one which is, quite frankly, is not what “tiggers like best…..”
Accordingly, operating both types of flying machines simultaneously from just one deck is “far from ideal”….and definitely should not be a situation which is “planned for from the start”
In summary – as the two words “aircraft carrier” themselves strongly imply – those types of ships are best off sicking to operating aircraft..
Lastly, you have fallen into the trap of thinking that naval helicopters need to operate on a through-deck design. They don’t! HMS Argus has done very well as a very effective helicopter carrier for the past forty years. Making any size of ship a through deck design adds a lot of complexities…and thus adds lot and lots of extra build cost..
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If we want to deliver company+ size forces by air, they need to be delivered rapidly. So a sizeable helicopter fleet is necessary and that really does mean through deck- Ocean, Mistral, Trieste.
I don’t accept that operating troop carrying rotor craft from a carrier as large as POW would be unusually difficult. It is already being done. US LPH are significantly smaller yet operate both F35 and tilt rotors. If we had the resources, using both carriers as they were intended for both defence and strike would be optimal. But since we won’t have enough F35s to utilize them fully for perhaps another decade, why waste a very expensive vessel in token gestures.
If we wanted to conduct amphibious operations by air now and not in 10 years time, a carrier is the only current option.
At the moment there are two carriers. At some point QE will enter into a deep refit and then will only be one in service. And then only operated at a very relaxed peace time tempo unlike the USN’s CVN.
As I have said before loads of times now we need to base a close combat company and TAC HQ in the carrier with 8-ish Junglies and a clutch of Wildcat to be a QRF. The rump could then be based in an LPD. This is why I advocate a through deck LPD. The Junglies have depositing the first wave could then ‘return’ to the LPD for the second with plenty of flighdeck space.
Fine for the future. My point was really how would we manage a sizeable force insertion by air NOW? Since the sale of Ocean, the only ships capable of carrying a large helicopter force are the carriers. Not ideal and a problem if one is in deep refit.
Peter S
In all of my earlier posts, I was referring to what the “near future” MRSS design should look like, when they (eventually) enter service with the RN.
Accordingly I was not really commenting on the situation today
However I totally agree with you that, if we had to do an airborne assault tomorrow, then one of the two QE carrier could be used. If that happens, the n it would be best if “a.n. other carrier” or land based aircraft could be used for many of the fixed wing air defence / offensive operations. That is precisely what happened off the Faw Peninsula in 2003; when one of the Invincible class carriers was used by the bootnecks
I also totally agree with you that to rapidly insert company sized units we ideally need at least one large aviation deck .
That is why I had suggested that three of the six MRSS ships now within the “RN development pipeline” be built as as large dedicated aviation ships.
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think Steller are trying to address the fact that current amphibious vessels can’t keep up with the Frigates over strategic distances & considering the LSG includes 2 Frigates it would be useful if all could arrive together as a group.
As for armament I think you answer your own question with “modern threat environment for any “amphibian” is now a very very hostile one” The armament is not to fight to the beach but recognisation of the 100s if not 1000s of drones such as Shahed 136 types, one-way USVs, FIACs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles the list goes on that will threaten the vessel & group even at distance.
Their concept is as FCF clear some of the threats it can also move further in to shore where then the 5 inch might be of use- my question is to do what? Most objectives are urban or close to urban centres FCF lacks mass & firepower. You can’t jump from a few 12 man strike teams to Ro-Ros rolling off vehicles near/or in a port.
FCF is a confused budgetary driven concept which leads to zero effect on the end state of a mission so not sure I could blame Steller rather MOD/RN/RMs who seem to think they will dizzy the enemy into submission with lots of pin pricks. If we are only delivering effectively SF I don’t see the point of large vessels. All divergent from the concept of well never act alone in which case give up let USMC do it!
I agree with a lot else I don’t think LPD/LSD replacement/MRSS can be solved by a single design
Off on a tangent MBDA have now integrated Marte onto the Airbus H215 platform. Such a missile is desperately needed for RN Merlins.
old design but better than nothing
Yes it is. Having a heavy AShM missile for your helicopter extends your frigate’s reach. Merlin cruises at 5 times a frigate’s top speed with an endurance of just over 4 hours. It can travel away from the frigate’s direction of travel. Some here just don’t grasp those simple facts.
Ideally you need two cabs. One to hang back using the radar to find the target. And the other to fly at near wave top to get as close as possible to the target.
I am still surprised the RN didn’t select a heavy missile at the start of Merlin’s life. They call the Merlin the flying frigate. Then again I suppose like most British ships then it is lacking offensive depth. The Italians have Marte for their Merlins.
There is more chance that England will win the next World Cup than this will be adopted by RN, definitely no fight tonight.
We are just chatting nothing more.
The puzzling absence of UK fixed-wing maritime strike capability
https://www.navylookout.com/the-puzzling-absence-of-uk-fixed-wing-maritime-strike-capability/
I more worried about the like of rotary maritime strike capability really. 🙂
I have wondered why our QRA Typhoons are fitted for Harpoon.
But if the RN are too bothered about killing ships why should anybody else be?
But BAE only conducted checks in 2013 and Harpoon never entered service with Typhoon. The picture was only a CGI by BAE.
Nimrod had Harpoon and Tornado had Sea Eagle. Nimrod retired in 2011 and Sea Eagle was withdrawn from RAF services back in 2000.
So a big gap in no anti-ship capability for a long time, FCASM will not enter service anytime soon, 2034?
I missed typed……..
I have wondered why our QRA Typhoons are not fitted for Harpoon.
Or another heavy AShM.
I would have thought NSM-AL would be a better option than Marte if you have to pay for integration on Merlin. Longer range, passive sensors & base missile already in RN service.
No well deck, no good.
If you think back to WW2, the Commandos used Fairmile H LCIs which were wooden. They carried just over a 100 men and could beach. In terms of pure raiding capacity, do we really need 15,000 tons to do a similar job? How much extra benefit are we getting for the extra money or are we gold-plating again? If there’s no well deck, there’s no serious vehicles so how is it much different from the Fairmile and how many of those could you get for the same price? If you dump the mothership for UUV etc back into T32 and stick to pure raiding why could a small, longer range ship not work? You even get round the manpower problem by running most of them with RNVR, use them as training vessels and only run a proportion of them during peacetime anyway. Use the spare money for extra T32s.
Random Commentator
Small wooden boats carrying 100 men were always obsolete (even when they were first built). My key point is that the threat levels have massively increased since then…….
Think back 40 years to the Falkland’s (round 1) when the Argentines invaded. They were resisted…..
Near Port Stanley
Lightly armoured amphibious tracked vehicles (note 1) were sunk, at very short ranges, with very simple Carl Gustav recoilless rifles (note 2)
In South Georgia,
When it sailed in close, the bootnecks made “a right mess” of an Argie frigate.
In both cases, it was only the fact that the tiny contingents of RMC were completely and utterly outnumbered, and also outflanked, which lead to their surrender. However, in just a few hours, they had inflicted a lot of damage to the invaders, simply by using their very few first generation missiles. If they had had modern anti-tank /anti-aircraft missiles available, far more damage would have been done to the invading force
Later, during Falkland’s War Round 2, the islands geography was why the main RN force went into San Carlos Water. That was for two reasons: firstly because the land in that area was essential undefended and, secondly, because the surrounding high hills made the anchorage itself immune to anti-ship missiles (however not to low flying aircraft!)
——————–
I would disagree with you that we need the Type 32 frigates. That is simply because I believe that having third type of frigate in the RN would be an unnecessary triplication. The T32 will not do anything that other types of ship cannot do. That is why I have advocated, here on NL, buying more T26 and more T31: “rolling both types off a production line” to boost up escort numbers.
———————
However I might well agree with you that (generally) smaller ships, ones with a long range, could be very very useful for commando raiding.
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. Lightly armoured vehicles which the USMC are still using today……………
Note 2. Reminder to Hugo = those pacifist Swedes have always made very good weapon systems….both anti-tank missiles and also conventional submarines
Your points are correct but I would point out that not all of the AAAVs were sunk. I’m talking about having lots of smaller boats and expecting to lose some. With 50 cheap boats, you can land in 50 different places or at least have more than 1 target. Quantity has a quality of its own. The idea of having a raiding craft like the one above that can’t land anything bigger than a landrover and supports only a single company of troops yet still needs 15,000 tonnes makes no sense. It will also get zero support from the RAF and Army as it cuts them out of amphibious operations completely. The price for that is a Chinook capable deck and well deck with LCUs.
Something that isn’t consider above is that helicopters are never loaded to capacity. The ‘not all your eggs in one basket’ principle.
Chinook capable flight decks are one thing. But having a hangar for them is another matter. Base them in the carriers is the best option and then fly them out to these new ships as needed. And use the helicopter designed for the task instead, Merlin.
I will use this picture again.
Look at how much deck those Chinook take up on these Osumi class. I suppose you could build a hangar for’ard. And then have a secondary flight deck on top of it perhaps? Looks clumsy.
Why they never built a maritime version of Chinook I don’t know. Folding rotors were developed for them. And rust proofing them couldn’t be too difficult.
The immediate predecessor of the Chinook was for USN/Marines and ‘right sized’
Nobody knows what this T32 thing will look like.
If the landing force is restricted to movement on foot then they have lost all advantage and severely reduced their radius of action. You could use bikes. But they aren’t much better than being on foot.
Actually the Fairmile H did have a rack for bikes!
It did!!! Yes!!!
These card models are very pretty……..
https://www.kartonbau.de/attachment/767802-pxl-20220203-092421704-jpg
We need something that size. But a heck of a lot quicker. I think we need to move two (three?) pick-up sized vehicles per hull. Something with folding hydrofoils?
I still think the scuppered EFV is something worth looking at; deployed in troops of 4.
The French L-CAT can an armoured recce platoon.
The Ruskies have the surface effect Dyugon-class landing craft. They can 35kts.
Too many variables and too much compilations. Helicopters are better for this role. But not taking a fast landing craft would not be optimal.
Still points to a ship 12,000 tonne-ish. Probably bigger.
Random Commentator
I would “politely” point out that the one and only reason the bootnecks did not sink many more lightly armoured amphibious vehicles during the Falkland’s War Round 1 back in 1982 is that they simply ran out of rounds for their Swedish-made Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. Thus, as I pointed out earlier, had many more modern ATM’s rounds been available to them back in 1982 = then the “incoming” Argies, who (as you quite rightly say) had many amphibious vehicles, would have taken massive casualties.
All in all, the advantages of “more quantity” always works both ways!
However, I do fully take on board, and I also agree with, your key point = that landing lots of “small packets” of troops in numerous different locations right along a very-hostile shoreline might well be very good idea in a near-future war.
However, whether or not that proposed CONOPS is even possible all comes down to just one thing, the type of boat used = the “ship-to-shore connector” (PS horrible phrase)
These days, because of the major threat posed by bigger anti-ship missiles those assault boats will have to travel into the beach from a very long way out.
Therein lies the rub….
All types of small boat under, let’s say, 20m long (so including all types of amphibious armoured vehicles) all suffer from one key issue: that they can only be used in nice weather (i.e. quite low waves and thus calm sea states).
That gives the enemy one hell of an advantage, simply because the enemy only has to look at the window – or google “weather forecast” on their smart-phone – before deciding whether (please excise the pun) or not, to:
Conclusion
Thus having a ship-to-shore connector (aka “a boat”) that has an “long range and an all-weather capability” makes a hell of a lot of sense: because then the UK armed forces will arriving somewhere where and when the enemy least expects them……………..but they MUST arrive in a fighting fit condition (i.e. having not run out of bogroll and vomit bags first).
That boat also needs to carry vehicles, firepower etc and it MUST have have a very shallow draft…..so the marines do not have to swim 800m (half -a mileS) wearing full combat gear and with their SA80’s clamped firmly between their lips.
Unfortunately, at the present time, nobody has invented this “device”
——————————–
Hence my proposal for the FCF to be based on-board aviation ships: and flown into action. An effective combat radius of over 100 miles for either Chinooks or Merlin’s, even on a “covert insertion”, is very feasible….
However – as has been quite-rightly pointed out by others above – that means the FCF on board those helicopters will be “travelling light” (i.e. avoiding the surcharge Ryanair impose on large baggage in the passenger cabin).
Hence my proposal for a second wave (ONLY IF required) to be delivered by logistics ships over-the-beach: because they would be needed to bring in heavier vehicles, artillery and fuel: not to mention more musket balls for the British Army’s Brigade of Guards latest self-loading muskets.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
.
I might as well post this again. This is the minimum orbat the USMC think is needed to do anything useful ashore.
Whale Island Zookeeper
I am very familiar with this chart (EMOJI).
In total, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) currently has a total force / strength of about 188,000.
So the USMC alone has:
That subtotal for just the USMC alone is before one counts up the rest of the USN; the US Coastguard: all of the USAF; all of the US Army and not now forgetting the relatively-new US Space Command.
Lets also not forget that each one of the 50 US states also each have a heavily-armed civilian-manned militia: called the National Guard.
Oh, I nearly forgot……………..the US Defence Intelligence Agencies (all 18 of them) have a total annual budget approximately the same as the entire UK defence budget.
Total US defence spending is now over $800B per annum = a figure no other country comes anywhere close to…………
That is the one and only reason why the USMC can plan to do this “modus operandi” = to “kick the door in” by using vast numbers of troops in a direct frontal assault. It is because they can afford to buy all the kit
————————
However, it the past half century, ever since the USN/USMC Tawara class ships came down the slipways in steamy Louisiana…………:
They has only been one single instance of the USMC carrying out a full frontal assault against defended beaches. That was against tiny Grenada in the early 1980’s
That was an operation which can be, “most politely”, described as “a total and utter cock-up from start to finish”
——–
Furthermore the USMC could not participate in its planned amphibious assault in the 1991 Gulf War (round 1) because;
———————-
On the 11th September 2001, armed with nothing more sophisticated than a few cheap box cutters, half a dozen terrorists managed to hit the very epicentre of all US military power: the Pentagon.
To arrive there, without knocking first, they had evaded the world’s most sophisticated and expensive aerospace defence system (NEADS), by the very simple expedient of simply turning off the one (and only) gadget that was supposed to go “bleep-bleep” every few seconds.
Not forgetting that, fully two decades later, after a long and very expensive war, the last few Afghans killed by the USAF were those few unfortunates that fell off the wheels of their transport planes evacuating Kabul….
Therefore when it comes to winning offensive military operations, history has shown us that the technique of US of A spending lots and lots of money is not everything……….
———-
So, getting back on topic:
When it comes to discussing the finer points of amphibious operations, let us please not forget that key word once mentioned by Napoleon : “logistics”
Personally I am a great fan of the US Military Sealift Command (MSC) Maritime Prepositioning Ships.
Very rarely publicised, these huge ships keep lot and lots of brand-new warfighting kit lying offshore – in what are basically giant floating warehouses. Then, but only as and when needed, do they start flying out the USMC/USN/USAF/US Army combat teams who are needed to man that equipment…
The US MSC prepositioning programme is remarkably cheap to run each year… and it has proved to be remarkably effective in several major operations since 1980
——————.
Your other point (directly above) – pointing out that the RAF Chinook fleet is not properly marinized – is a very very good one (and one I have posted about before (EMOJI)
Thus, all in all, it is only IF all three UK armed services decide to work together will we here in the UK ever achieve anything effective …….especially with those very difficult and complex operations called “amphibious landings” (Note 2). Accordingly, as has been correctly noted by others above, these very complex operations always need to involve the RAF and Army.
I’ve got to go now………..FA Cup Final kick-off is in five minutes…. and there is no guarantee that the team that spent most on its new players and kit this season will win.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
For statistically-minded nerds who are reading Navy Lookout over this less-than-sunny (and bloody cold) bank holiday weekend, I must point out that:
Note 2
The 30mm on top of the bridge seems pointless.
The royal Navy is too small now for highly specialized ships designs like this are a good step forward, Though I don’t agree with the 76mm that should be swapped out with something already in our inventory, Eg the 40mm boffors.
Would be nice to have something like this…
A second Absalon-esque ship and 5in with PGM shell too I think.
PGM shells have been found to be easily defeated in Ukraine by GPS jamming.
Good idea while it lasted – as jamming will become bigger not less
Go away and have a think.
That’s how out of date ideas continue in use. Hubris. As though any reply is beneath them
MODERATION?!
The Flight deck should be larger so that in an emergency a F15 can land and take off,
I assume you mean an F35, also the amount of heat protection that would require for the off chance an F35 required it isn worth it.
Hmm ….single spot flight deck for carrying out a company lift …
Yeah not going to work and has others have said no dock ….kinda very limited in its use.
Still an assault ship with a hangar ..novel idea….never going to happen.
Next idea….
I’m struck by how much this looks like a scaled-up version of the Spartan design that Stellar submitted for the T31 programme, even down to the stern ramp.
https://www.navylookout.com/steller-systems-offers-another-option-for-the-type-31-frigate-design/
I like Stellar Systems, but let’s start with this:
Propulsion system is overly complex and possibly very noisy. Fixing the azipods while using the shaft and props will generate a ton of noise over the fixed props of the azipods. Just use the azipods.Aft launching capability from the narrow doors is problematic. For commonality with existing allied craft, the well deck is needed. Plus, the well deck allows for UUVs and USVs to be deployed.Combat system must match Type 31 (or Type 32, if it ever exists).VLS makes sense, as you can pack a range of weapons, AAW, ASuW, ASW, particularly if cooperative engagement is used, which it most likely will.Gun armament must match current fleet. There’s no place for the 76mm despite its widespread use. And unless you’re within 25nm, there’s no need for a 5″ gun. Better off firing HIMARS from the helo deck. A better fit would be 2-57mm (fore and aft), the 2-30mm, and 2 RAM/SeaRAM or Phalanx mounts.Increase usable hull volume, decrease speed to 25 knots and call it a day.