Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) - previously Future Littoral Strike Ship (FLSS)

[Rhinocrates]

Addendum.

Royal Navy’s Multi Role Support Ship programme to go ahead | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The MRSS project will develop a single design to replace the two LPDs HMS Albion and Bulwark, the three LSD(A)s RFA Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay and Lyme Bay together with RFA Argus.

One type replacing three. The worrying bit is 'up to' instead of 'at least.'

Photos and silhouettes of the vessels to be replaced are in the header graphic. The rendering is of BMT's ELLIDA.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Addendum.

Royal Navy To Get Up To Six New Amphibious Warships

The Royal Navy will get as many as six Multi-Role Support Ships as part of a shipbuilding program that includes 28 warships and submarines.

www.twz.com

The government says that “up to six” MRSS will replace a variety of in-service vessels, including two Albion class landing platform docks, three Bay class landing ship dock (auxiliaries), and the aviation support ship RFA Argus, in the early 2030s.

One type replacing three. The worrying bit is 'up to' instead of 'at least.'

Very much agree there. Needs to be "at least" six, if not a complete 1-for-1 replacement of all the ships.

 

[TinWing]

Yes, in the interview, the company rep says that while it carries less than, say the ELLIDA, survivability of the battalion overall is enhanced by distributing it over more than one vessel while the design's improved efficiency can allow a larger number to be built and deployed.

The fact that it has significant defensive and offensive capability of its own compared to others of the general concept might be an advantage, considering what's happening in the Red Sea now and its implications for procurement policy.

The problem is ensuring there are adequate numbers of amphibious hulls. A 6 unit program represents the bare minimum when each ship is essentially carrying only a single company. If you produce something the size of a cruiser, fully kitted out with the systems of a full on escort, affordability is a real issue. A likely scenario is a truncated 3 hull program with the availability of only a single operational unit at a time. The commando brigade will amount to the operational equivalent of an under equipped company. Maybe that’s all the UK will be able to field in any case?

 

[TinWing]

Addendum.

Royal Navy’s Multi Role Support Ship programme to go ahead | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The MRSS project will develop a single design to replace the two LPDs HMS Albion and Bulwark, the three LSD(A)s RFA Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay and Lyme Bay together with RFA Argus.

One type replacing three. The worrying bit is 'up to' instead of 'at least.'

Photos and silhouettes of the vessels to be replaced are in the header graphic. The rendering is of BMT's ELIIDA.

View attachment 729946

With the increasing improbability of actual shipbuilding in Belfast, the RN might as well wrap the Fleet Solid Support requirement into MRSS as well.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Specific MRSS requirements in terms of overall force structure may affect or be affected by the Type 32 and Fleet Solid Support Ship.

This article dates from 2020, when the MRSS was still the Littoral Strike Ship.

UK to restore Royal Navy to Europe's most powerful maritime force - Naval News

The British Prime Minister has announced the biggest investment in the UK’s Armed Forces since the end of the Cold War, confirming an injection of £16.5 billion over four years. For the Royal Navy, plans for a new "Type 32" frigate have surfaced.

www.navalnews.com

While the 8 Type 26 frigates (also known as the City-class) and 5 Type 31 frigates were already planned to be procured, the real surprise in today’s announcement is the mention for the first time of the “Type 32”. Early rumors associated the term with an export variant of Type 31, T4X (Type 45 destroyer replacement), the Littoral Strike Ship project (which appears to be abandoned) or even a typo. Naval News learned from a reliable UK source that this is in fact some sort of “pre program” put in place for budgetary reasons in anticipation of a future potential “Type 31 Batch 2”. The source added that this potential “Type 31 Batch 2” may not necessarily be based on the Type 31 design.

Since then, Babcock and BAE Systems have released concepts for the Type 32 but no formal requirement has been issued. The Babcock proposal is a modified Type 31 while the BAE design is a clean sheet, optimised for strike.

Babcock showcases Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform concept with view to Type 32 frigate competition | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

In focus: BAE Systems’ adaptable strike frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The National Shipbuilding Strategy as of 2022 was to have the Type 32 as a drone mothership while both Babcock and (even more so) BAE have emphasised littoral strike. If the MRSS is to take a more aggressive role rather than just delivering troops, as looks likely, then I expect some delay in formulating the exact Type 32 requirements until they've worked out how it's going to work with the MRSS. Probably the drone support role will be emphasised and both of the released design proposals will undergo some changes.

Type 32 Frigate to focus on operating drones

The Type 32 Frigate will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

As for the Fleet Solid Support Ship, this is the latest article I found. Contracts are going out, so it looks certain to remain a separate programme, suggesting that the MRSS will indeed be less logistics-biased and tilt more to offence/defence of troops. ELLIDA only has weapons for self-defence ('Daleks'), while Fearless has proper guns and missiles. Under the scenario I've described, that design probably has the edge.

By the way, Albion and Bulwark are Royal Navy combat vessels and are 'HMS' while the other ships are Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 'RFA'. All MRSS's will be 'HMS' and the FSSS's 'RFA' I guess.

Progress on Fleet Solid Support Ships

"It is expected that approximately 60% of the contract value will be with UK companies."

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Now there is a general election imminent in the UK, and the polls strongly indicate a Labour victory. Barring divine/diabolical (depending on your opinion) intervention, Keir Starmer will be the UK's next prime minister. He's spent years making it clear that he's not Jeremy Corbyn, so I don't think that there will be any major upset in plans for the RN.

 

[EwenS]

Look, we have a general election on 4 July. The focus of all politicians is now on getting elected. The civil servants won't be able to get any decision on anything major before then. Whoever comes to power, except (probably?) the Tories will immediately order a Defence Review, so causing further delay to everything in the current plan!!! Who knows what the outcome will then be. So all speculation at present is a complete waste of time.

Cynical? Moi!!!!

 

[TinWing]

Specific MRSS requirements in terms of overall force structure may affect or be affected by the Type 32 and Fleet Solid Support Ship.

This article dates from 2020, when the MRSS was still the Littoral Strike Ship.

UK to restore Royal Navy to Europe's most powerful maritime force - Naval News

The British Prime Minister has announced the biggest investment in the UK’s Armed Forces since the end of the Cold War, confirming an injection of £16.5 billion over four years. For the Royal Navy, plans for a new "Type 32" frigate have surfaced.

www.navalnews.com

While the 8 Type 26 frigates (also known as the City-class) and 5 Type 31 frigates were already planned to be procured, the real surprise in today’s announcement is the mention for the first time of the “Type 32”. Early rumors associated the term with an export variant of Type 31, T4X (Type 45 destroyer replacement), the Littoral Strike Ship project (which appears to be abandoned) or even a typo. Naval News learned from a reliable UK source that this is in fact some sort of “pre program” put in place for budgetary reasons in anticipation of a future potential “Type 31 Batch 2”. The source added that this potential “Type 31 Batch 2” may not necessarily be based on the Type 31 design.

Since then, Babcock and BAE Systems have released concepts for the Type 32 but no formal requirement has been issued. The Babcock proposal is a modified Type 31 while the BAE design is a clean sheet, optimised for strike.

Babcock showcases Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform concept with view to Type 32 frigate competition | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

In focus: BAE Systems’ adaptable strike frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

The National Shipbuilding Strategy as of 2022 was to have the Type 32 as a drone mothership while both Babcock and (even more so) BAE have emphasised littoral strike. If the MRSS is to take a more aggressive role rather than just delivering troops, as looks likely, then I expect some delay in formulating the exact Type 32 requirements until they've worked out how it's going to work with the MRSS. Probably the drone support role will be emphasised and both of the released design proposals will undergo some changes.

Type 32 Frigate to focus on operating drones

The Type 32 Frigate will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

As for the Fleet Solid Support Ship, this is the latest article I found. Contracts are going out, so it looks certain to remain a separate programme, suggesting that the MRSS will indeed be less logistics-biased and tilt more to offence/defence of troops. ELLIDA only has weapons for self-defence ('Daleks'), while Fearless has proper guns and missiles. Under the scenario I've described, that design probably has the edge.

By the way, Albion and Bulwark are Royal Navy combat vessels and are 'HMS' while the other ships are Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 'RFA'. All MRSS's will be 'HMS' and the FSSS's 'RFA' I guess.

Progress on Fleet Solid Support Ships

"It is expected that approximately 60% of the contract value will be with UK companies."

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Now there is a general election imminent in the UK, and the polls strongly indicate a Labour victory. Barring divine/diabolical (depending on your opinion) intervention, Keir Starmer will be the UK's next prime minister. He's spent years making it clear that he's not Jeremy Corbyn, so I don't think that there will be any major upset in plans for the RN.

The problem with FSSS is that treasury is balking at handing £200m to a seemingly defunct shipyard that is only worth £20m and mostly likely isn’t able to raise a skilled workforce from the local population of Belfast. I don’t see how FSSS will be able to pass the inevitable review of a new government. Even after a sweeping and historical win, I somehow doubt the new government will be eager to fund the predictable and inevitable embarrassment of delays and cost overruns. Unless Navantia can be allowed to get on with the job, I can’t see a future for FSSS aside from years of delays.

 

[Rhinocrates]

...treasury... workforce... inevitable review... delays and cost overruns...

Good points all. And I didn't even mention Type 83

 

[H_K]

The MRSS project will develop a single design to replace the two LPDs HMS Albion and Bulwark, the three LSD(A)s RFA Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay and Lyme Bay together with RFA Argus.

For what it’s worth, I ran some rough numbers on the level of capability each MRSS would need to match the existing fleet (assuming 6x MRSS hulls). Here’s what I got:

300 pax
650 lane meters
Aviation: 2x Merlin helos in hangar + 1x stowed on deck, 1 Chinook sized landing spot
Landing craft: 2 LCUs in dock + 2 LCVPs in davits

Maybe start there and discuss what capability needs to be added / removed?

Personally, I’m going to play around with a minimum sized flat deck (10,000-11,000 tons) similar to HDW’s MHD 10000 or Damen’s small Enforcer LHD concepts.

 

[MihoshiK]

The Dutch are seeking to replace their 4 Holland class OPV commissioned 2012/13 AND their two LPD (Rotterdam & Johan De Witt) with a single class of 6 ships of a size lying somewhere between these two types, but we don't yet know where on that spectrum.

Dutch Navy to replace OPV and LPD with a Single Class of Ships - Naval News

The Royal Netherlands Navy will procure a single class of ship to replace its existing fleet of LPDs and OPVs in the 2030s

www.navalnews.com

Dutch navy gets six new Amphibious Transport Ships | SWZ

The Royal Netherlands Navy will replace its two Landing Platform Docks (LPDs) and four Oceangoing Patrol Vessels (OPVs) with six Amphibious Transport Ships.

swzmaritime.nl

So maybe the Steller design will come nearer to meeting their needs.

No, it won't. By all accounts the Dutch are looking at something closer to the flat-top multi purpose vessel that Damen is constructing for the Portugese navy, only bigger. And hopefully better armed.

Apparently there's a serious push for extensive (fixed-wing) drone flight capabilities, and for that you need a flat top.

 

[PMN1]

For what it’s worth, I ran some rough numbers on the level of capability each MRSS would need to match the existing fleet (assuming 6x MRSS hulls). Here’s what I got:

300 pax
650 lane meters
Aviation: 2x Merlin helos in hangar + 1x stowed on deck, 1 Chinook sized landing spot
Landing craft: 2 LCUs in dock + 2 LCVPs in davits

Maybe start there and discuss what capability needs to be added / removed?

Personally, I’m going to play around with a minimum sized flat deck (10,000-11,000 tons) similar to HDW’s MHD 10000 or Damen’s small Enforcer LHD concepts.

Do Damen still offer a 'through deck' LHD as on their website they all seem to be LPD type with a full width superstructure forward.

 

[MihoshiK]

Do Damen still offer a 'through deck' LHD as on their website they all seem to be LPD type with a full width superstructure forward.

Multi-Purpose Support Ship Range | Damen

The Multi-Purpose Support Ship range is a response to the increasing use of drone technology that we see in modern combat situations.

www.damen.com

Place taken by their new multi purpose support ship range.

 

[TomS]

Multi-Purpose Support Ship Range | Damen

The Multi-Purpose Support Ship range is a response to the increasing use of drone technology that we see in modern combat situations.

www.damen.com

Place taken by their new multi purpose support ship range.

Also, just because the through-deck configurations of LHD are not shown on the Damen website doesn't mean they would not offer them if asked or the requirement called for it.

For reference, they had specs for quite a few different LHDs configured either with full-width superstructures or through decks.

 

[PMN1]

Multi-Purpose Support Ship Range | Damen

The Multi-Purpose Support Ship range is a response to the increasing use of drone technology that we see in modern combat situations.

www.damen.com

Place taken by their new multi purpose support ship range.

Ahh search obviously very weak.

 

[PMN1]

Also, just because the through-deck configurations of LHD are not shown on the Damen website doesn't mean they would not offer them if asked or the requirement called for it.

For reference, they had specs for quite a few different LHDs configured either with full-width superstructures or through decks.

View attachment 730083

Thats the one i'd seen many many many years ago, and have the JPEG, but couldn't find again in their current offerings.

 

[TomS]

Thats the one i'd seen many many many years ago, and have the JPEG, but couldn't find again in their current offerings.

I figured. Just thought I'd drop it here for posterity.

 

[PMN1]

I figured. Just thought I'd drop it here for posterity.

Cannot really see why everyone went for the LPD option and didn't factor in possible changes over time....I assume costs.....something I didn't see on those graphics was the cost differences.

 

[TomS]

Cannot really see why everyone went for the LPD option and didn't factor in possible changes over time....I assume costs.....something I didn't see on those graphics was the cost differences.

The through-decks have a raised upper deck (presumably mostly for hangar) but they seem to lose a bunch of volume in the superstructure that could be used for other functions. It's a tradeoff.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Look, we have a general election on 4 July. The focus of all politicians is now on getting elected. The civil servants won't be able to get any decision on anything major before then. Whoever comes to power, except (probably?) the Tories will immediately order a Defence Review, so causing further delay to everything in the current plan!!! Who knows what the outcome will then be. So all speculation at present is a complete waste of time.

Cynical? Moi!!!!

Ah, but are you cynical enough?

Yes, reviews, delays and reorganisation are inevitable to serve various MPs delusions of relevance, but in the end I'd expect some part of this scenario come to pass. Albion and Bulwark are in urgent need of replacement and a 'strike frigate' isn't going to be adequate. To me, the fate of the Type 32 seems the most uncertain.

Anyway, speculation exercises the mind and it's fun.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

Interesting choice. I suspect that the ship will end up pretty close to the size of the LPDs, though. Carrying ~200 Marines and the extra stuff to carry them to the objective.

The Stellar design is to large. There is little information but the length of 150 m is a rumor. It is also very possible that the Dutch will go for 6 small LHD's with a full deck for 2 helicopters (2 or 3 NH-90 will be carried in the hangar but capable of landing CH-47/V-22's on its deck) and a additional hangar voor UAV's. The amount of ~200 Troops is a almost confirmed number, the MOD announced that 3 of the new ships would be needed to replace the capacity of 1 of the current LPD's. This means dividing 6 helo's, ~600 marines, 4 LCVP's + 2 LCU's onto 3 new vessels.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

Also, just because the through-deck configurations of LHD are not shown on the Damen website doesn't mean they would not offer them if asked or the requirement called for it.

For reference, they had specs for quite a few different LHDs configured either with full-width superstructures or through decks.

View attachment 730083

I know they still offer them but not publicly, a few years ago Damen confirmed they still had the LHD's in their catalogue.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Stellar design is to large. There is little information but the length of 150 m is a rumor. It is also very possible that the Dutch will go for 6 small LHD's with a full deck for 2 helicopters (2 or 3 NH-90 will be carried in the hangar but capable of landing CH-47/V-22's on its deck) and a additional hangar voor UAV's. The amount of ~200 Troops is a almost confirmed number, the MOD announced that 3 of the new ships would be needed to replace the capacity of 1 of the current LPD's. This means dividing 6 helo's, ~600 marines, 4 LCVP's + 2 LCU's onto 3 new vessels.

Hrm.

I'd want to add a few extra LCVPs and LCUs to the mix, plus at least have space for more helos.

Call it: 2x helos and flight deck space for 2 more, 200 marines, 2x LCVPs and 1x LCU per ship.

This increases the total capacity of 3 such ships to: space for 12 helos, 600 Marines, 6x LCVPs, and 3x LCUs.

This will also require some reorganization of the Marine unit, so that it can split into 3x roughly equally sized and capable chunks. The USN/USMC doesn't do that, they split the MEU across 3 different class ships each with their own focus. LHA, LPD, and LST. LST got the tank platoon when that was a thing and the LAV company. LPD got the AAVs and a chunk of the grunts to ride in them. LHA got all the helos, obviously, and it carried that chunk of Marines ashore in helos.

Does the Royal Marine Commando unit as employed bring any tanks? If so, I'd want to have space for a tank platoon in each MRSS. (I always thought that the weakness of the USMC MEU was only bringing a platoon of tanks for the battalion. A company of tanks is a much better addition.)

 

[Forest Green]

Steller Systems unveil ‘Fearless’ Multi Role Support Ship concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[TinWing]

Steller Systems unveil ‘Fearless’ Multi Role Support Ship concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

View attachment 730242
View attachment 730243

Suddenly, the Fearless concept starts to make sense. Steller Systems is really trying to sell their Hulltune software to the industry. Getting 30 knots on 32MW with a rather beamy 15,500 tonne hull is quite impressive. https://ukdj.imgix.net/2024/05/Render-9-Ortho-Top.png

Take away some of the excessive superstructure, which is no doubt devoted to accomodations, add more VLS cells, and this would be an impressive base for the Type 83 “destroyer.” Before anyone complains about the excessive size, someone has estimated that the most recent BAE concept scales out to 180 meters long!

In the end, I do think this is more about the software than the ship concept. The clever hull form is to be commended, though.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Requirements are revealed.

Royal Navy outlines Multi Role Support Ship requirements | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

What is immediately obvious is that the stated timeline for the programme is extremely tight. If the Bay class are not extended in service, then the MRSS first-of-class needs to enter service in 2031. Essentially this would mean there are about 4 years to develop the design and about 3 years to build the first ship.

MRSS will operate worldwide and be persistently deployed as part of Littoral Response Groups (LRG). They may be aggregated to form a larger Littoral Strike Group (LSG) or to be combined with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) to form an Expeditionary Strike Force. Importantly the RN says the ship must have sufficient self-defence capability to operate independently in a medium-threat environment, although they would be protected by other assets in high-threat areas. The dividing line between threat levels is increasingly blurred and raised as non-state actors and sub-peer adversaries are now able to develop or obtain much more potent weapons. It is plain that the threats to surface ships are evolving fast, particularly in the littorals and survival will demand much-improved combat capability over existing RN amphibious ships.

The key role of MRSS will be to host, launch and recover Commando Force (and special forces) personnel, surface, aviation, vehicles and equipment for full-scale Littoral Strike amphibious operations. Just what this looks like is still somewhat sketchy although can be found outlined in the Commando Force operating model. The ships will also need to be able to sustain forces once they are ashore with logistic support.

MRSS will be an afloat command platform with the C3 facilities able to host staff up to the size of a NATO two-star headquarters. It will also provide a maritime-deployed hospital care facility to replace the PCRS capabilities of RFA Argus. This will be Role 2 Enhanced medical capability and when aggregated with another MRSS to form the LSG, this will be a Role 3 medical capability. (In simple terms, R2E provides advanced medical support including urgent surgery, basic inpatient care, and resuscitative care. R3 provides comprehensive medical support including extensive surgery and prolonged inpatient care.)

As an important caveat, the RN does not expect the C3 and medical capabilities to be carried on the ship concurrently and MRSS will designed to be modular so medical facilities can be swapped out for command facilities. This will most likely be achieved through PODS / containerised solutions inserted into a large internal deck area with a digital backbone, appropriate space, weight and power available. Loosely described as “a Type 26 frigate mission bay on steroids”, vehicle decks or other spaces will also be needed to host expeditionary off-board autonomous systems. These systems will also need facilities for launching, recovery and storage which implies a flight deck, hangar and possibly a well deck.

 

[Scott Kenny]

MRSS will operate worldwide and be persistently deployed as part of Littoral Response Groups (LRG). They may be aggregated to form a larger Littoral Strike Group (LSG) or to be combined with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) to form an Expeditionary Strike Force. Importantly the RN says the ship must have sufficient self-defence capability to operate independently in a medium-threat environment, although they would be protected by other assets in high-threat areas. The dividing line between threat levels is increasingly blurred and raised as non-state actors and sub-peer adversaries are now able to develop or obtain much more potent weapons. It is plain that the threats to surface ships are evolving fast, particularly in the littorals and survival will demand much-improved combat capability over existing RN amphibious ships.

What I'm reading is that it needs to be armed better than the USN Constellation-class FFGs. Aegis, enough SAMs to deal with at least one Houthi-scale attack without leaving the area, plus maybe even some TBM/AShBM work. ASROCs.

I don't expect this requirement to survive contact with HMTreasury.

 

[TomS]

What I'm reading is that it needs to be armed better than the USN Constellation-class FFGs. Aegis, enough SAMs to deal with at least one Houthi-scale attack without leaving the area, plus maybe even some TBM/AShBM work. ASROCs.

I don't expect this requirement to survive contact with HMTreasury.

The definition of "medium-threat" is pretty vague but it's safe to say that the Red Sea is not a medium-threat environment right now.

I suspect "medium threat" is probably the standard to which the Type 31 is designed. (The Rivers are for low-threat environments.) If so, think rotating AESA radar, CAMM, and guns, not AEGIS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The definition of "medium-threat" is pretty vague but it's safe to say that the Red Sea is not a medium-threat environment right now.

I would call it medium threat. No single large attacks able to exhaust all the defensive missiles in one go, but fairly constant attacks over several days that could exhaust the defensive missiles during a transit of the area.

It's definitely not the threat we'd expect from a near-peer, so unless you're calling near-peer a higher category than "high-threat"?

My mind is saying:

high threat - near peers​

Medium threat - Red Sea​

Low threat - other idiots starting things with warships​

I suspect "medium threat" is probably the standard to which the Type 31 is designed. (The Rivers are for low-threat environments.) If so, think rotating AESA radar, CAMM, and guns, not AEGIS.

I think you're saying:

Near peers​

High threat - Red Sea​

medium threat - what the MRSS and Type 31 are designed for​

low threat​

?

​

If so, then yes, that's probably reasonable if we're not considering the Red Sea medium-threat.

================

I'd want about 32x Mk41 cells: 4x4 ESSM or equivalent, 16x SM2 equivalent, ~6x VL-ASROC, 6x Tomahawks.

 

[BlackBat242]

Steller Systems unveil ‘Fearless’ Multi Role Support Ship concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

View attachment 730242
View attachment 730243

Looks good... but the name suggests:

HMS Fearless
HMS Intrepid
HMS Resolute
HMS Courageous
HMS Valiant
HMS Indomitable


Or.......
HMS Plucky
HMS Cocky
HMS Bodacious
HMS Cheeky
HMS Sassy
HMS Dashing

 

[TomS]

I would call it medium threat. No single large attacks able to exhaust all the defensive missiles in one go, but fairly constant attacks over several days that could exhaust the defensive missiles during a transit of the area.

It's definitely not the threat we'd expect from a near-peer, so unless you're calling near-peer a higher category than "high-threat"?

My mind is saying:

high threat - near peers​

Medium threat - Red Sea​

Low threat - other idiots starting things with warships​

I think you're saying:

Near peers​

High threat - Red Sea​

medium threat - what the MRSS and Type 31 are designed for​

low threat​

?

​

If so, then yes, that's probably reasonable if we're not considering the Red Sea medium-threat.

================

I'd want about 32x Mk41 cells: 4x4 ESSM or equivalent, 16x SM2 equivalent, ~6x VL-ASROC, 6x Tomahawks.

I just don't see ASROC or an SM-2 equivalent, because these ships probably do not have any organic ASW sensor capacity or the radar to support really long-range air defense missiles.

I'd expect them to have ~24 CAMM in a "mushroom farm", two or three close-in guns (30-40mm), and maybe one larger gun. The last is a wildcard; you could make a case for 127mm as in the Type 26 rather than the 57mm of the Type 31, but it's a fairly expensive option. More likely is neither, to be honest.

I'm moderately confident they will not have Mk 41. It's expensive, and its typical payloads even more so. If you need to do naval fires on a specific deployment, I'd send along a Type 31 or a Type 26, both of which which are getting Mk 41 that will carry Tomahawk/FC ASW land-attack missiles.

 

[Hood]

Well it could be CAMM but more likely to be a couple of 40mm Bofors. Even the carriers don't have self defence much beyond some pop-guns, so its unlikely these ships are going to be mini-T26s in capability.
(We're talking about the Navy whose Imperial Grand Far Eastern Squadron is comprised of a sole River-class battleship OPV).

 

[TomS]

Well it could be CAMM but more likely to be a couple of 40mm Bofors. Even the carriers don't have self defence much beyond some pop-guns, so its unlikely these ships are going to be mini-T26s in capability.
(We're talking about the Navy whose Imperial Grand Far Eastern Squadron is comprised of a sole River-class battleship OPV).

I'm hoping for T31 combat systems minus Mk 41. That doesn't seem impossible, but maybe is over-optimistic.

 

[Grey Havoc]

(We're talking about the Navy whose Imperial Grand Far Eastern Squadron is comprised of a sole River-class battleship OPV).

And that was before Labour came to power. Things are only going to get even worse, given things like the supposed 'Defence Review' and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Reeves' £7.3 Billion pound sterling 'Green Gamble' plan (which said impending disaster is certain to cost a lot more when all is said and done).

 

[Moose]

Labour has pledged to increase defense spending overall. Let's react to and analyze actual policy rather than falling back on "other party bad."

 

[TinWing]

And that was before Labour came to power. Things are only going to get even worse, given things like the supposed 'Defence Review' and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Reeves' £7.3 Billion pound sterling 'Green Gamble' plan (which said impending disaster is certain to cost a lot more when all is said and done).

Defense reviews invariably involve cuts, and quite frankly, there are enough problematic programs to cut. FSS is the most obvious candidate, as 2 of the 3 ships meant to be replaced were offloaded to Egypt and the Fort Victoria apparently couldn’t be manned by the RFA. Realistically, the RN needs a single FSS, preferably foreign built and with low manning requirements. Shipbuilding in Belfast is a hopeless fantasy. MRSS is looking like an expensive and ill defined requirement. The Bay class should be replaced by something cheaper and foreign built, with the Korean designed Makassar LPDs coming to mind. Perhaps it would be wiser to buy the Dutch JSS to replace the 2 LPDs and Fort Victoria, build the trio in Eastern Europe and fit them out in the UK, while at the same time ordering 4 to 6 Makassar class from Indonesia or South Korean.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

And that was before Labour came to power. Things are only going to get even worse, given things like the supposed 'Defence Review' and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Reeves' £7.3 Billion pound sterling 'Green Gamble' plan (which said impending disaster is certain to cost a lot more when all is said and done).

Given the current state of the British economy is in part because major global supplier of oil and gas started a war and had to be sanctioned, I think it would be a good idea to ween Britain off it, especially since few of the other global suppliers of those commodities seem particularly stable.

Last time Labour was in power they were responsible for beginning work on CVF, Type 45, Type 26 and Astute, whereas the previous Conservative Government was responsible for Type 31 (at the cost of the general-purpose Type 26s, so it's not like they've done any real force expansion).

 

[TinWing]

Given the current state of the British economy is in part because major global supplier of oil and gas started a war and had to be sanctioned, I think it would be a good idea to ween Britain off it, especially since few of the other global suppliers of those commodities seems particularly stable.

Last time Labour was in power they were responsible for beginning work on and ins one cases ordering CVF, Type 45, Type 26 and Astute, whereas the previous Conservative Government was responsible for Type 31 (at the cost of the general-purpose Type 26s, so it's not like they've done any real force expansion).

The global supplies of lithium and rare earth elements are far more centralized than fossil fuels. It seems that the entire zero-emissions battery-electric/solar future is in the hands of China. Does this option offer greater energy independence than dealing with OPEC?

I should also point out that Type 45 and Astute programs took a very long time to be rectified, the CVFs are white elephants and it’s too soon to know what problems the Type 26 will face. What I do know is that the diesel powered Type 31s only became politically possible with Rolls Royce’s purchase of MTU, and buying a proven foreign design only came about because the Type 45s were disastrously unreliable before PIP.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The global supplies of lithium and rare earth elements are far more centralized than fossil fuels. It seems that the entire zero-emissions battery-electric/solar future is in the hands of China. Does this option offer greater energy independence than dealing with OPEC?

There's a significant source of lithium within the UK. We'll need emissions reduction regardless, and regardless whether the solar panels etc are built in China, they donat least have a significantly longer lifespan without needing to be replaced than stocks of oil.

I should also point out that Type 45 and Astute programs took a very long time to be rectified, the CVFs are white elephants and it’s too soon to know what problems the Type 26 will face.

The CVFs are hardly White Elephants, they are and will be a useful means of projecting power. Most of the problems faced by these programs have come as a result of the changes in procurement, and the very deliberate reduction in state capacity, I expect we will increasingly see a reversion back to in-house development over the coming years and decades, as financial resources allow, the complete failure of the post-1980s way of doing things is increasingly apparent to all.

What I do know is that the diesel powered Type 31s only became politically possible with Rolls Royce’s purchase of MTU, and buying a proven foreign design only came about because the Type 45s were disastrously unreliable before PIP.

Type 31s seem to be a procurement mistake, the Type 21s of the 21st century, with limited margins for future growth. IEP for the Type 45s was a technical risk, with some problems, but that gives them a degree of future-proofing that most ships in the Royal Navy currently lack, aside from CVF.

 

[djpowell1984]

I hope they decide go two type see they go for 2 (or prefer 3) Fearless Class and 4 (or prefer 6) Elillda Class MRSS

Fearless for Med threat also for commando float base Littoral Response Groups (LRG) small float ramp to lunch stealth fast beach assault with heavy navy support gun/missiles.

Ellida for Low threat - also more flexible in peacetime the idea for swapping depend mission or permitting this class can operation as 1) mothership of Mine sweeper & layer / 2) Hospital / 3) UAV + Helicopter Carrier / 4) Retanker & Transport Ship / 5) Ampbilous Assualt - Low Threat Launch Tank transport sea big that fearless float ramp after clear beach. possible they can missiles launch using shipping containers as VLS? as cost saving. or use MRLS / MBDA iLauncher to fire Missiles on ship

 

[Scott Kenny]

I just don't see ASROC or an SM-2 equivalent, because these ships probably do not have any organic ASW sensor capacity or the radar to support really long-range air defense missiles.

I was assuming a hull sonar and a helicopter with a dipping sonar (plus buoys) as part of the permanently-assigned equipment.

SM2 equivalent is for AShBMs, I don't think the ESSMs have much capability against them. And I don't want to be on the wrong end of a live fire proof, thank you.

I'd expect them to have ~24 CAMM in a "mushroom farm", two or three close-in guns (30-40mm), and maybe one larger gun. The last is a wildcard; you could make a case for 127mm as in the Type 26 rather than the 57mm of the Type 31, but it's a fairly expensive option. More likely is neither, to be honest.

I'd honestly prefer those OTO 76mm for close in guns. Good rate of fire, fairly light installation that's really about the same total weight as Phalanx(!), and has the option for some nice long range guided shells in Vulcano. Plus the DART guided antimissile shots.

I'm moderately confident they will not have Mk 41. It's expensive, and its typical payloads even more so. If you need to do naval fires on a specific deployment, I'd send along a Type 31 or a Type 26, both of which which are getting Mk 41 that will carry Tomahawk/FC ASW land-attack missiles.

It's honestly really expensive to have a mix of VLS suites in the Navy. There's a reason even the fairly rich USN uses Mk41 almost exclusively. One school for the entire Navy, one set of spare parts that you can raid from one ship to another, etc ad nauseam.