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

[TomS]

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

Yeah, no. These are basically hybrid LSL/LST/LPDs. No sonar, no permanent ASW helos.

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.

Thing is, the RN has already bought 57mm and 40mm for the Type 31s. Adding another medium gun caliber is not practical. If they want guided rounds, 57mm does offer that in the form of ALaMO (and another newer offering that I'm forgetting the name of. Not Orka.) But again, that's money they probably don't have.

It's honestly really expensive to have a mix of VLS suites in the Navy.

And yet this is one area where the RN is stuck. They have Sylver for PAAMS, they have the CAMM launchers, and they want Mk 41 going forward. (Sylver will likely die with the T45 successor but that's a way down the road.)

If MRSS gets any missiles at all, CAMM is the only one that makes sense to me, and the mushroom farm is what they've chosen. It's an incredibly simple launcher since all of the ejection and so forth is done in the canister with a frangible cap, no hot gas plenum, no moving doors, etc.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, no. These are basically hybrid LSL/LST/LPDs. No sonar, no permanent ASW helos.

Dangerous to be in the littorals without those. Even more dangerous than with them, I mean. It's not like the littorals are safe, they're the worst parts of town when only the thugs and chavs are out on a good day.

Thing is, the RN has already bought 57mm and 40mm for the Type 31s. Adding another medium gun caliber is not practical. If they want guided rounds, 57mm does offer that in the form of ALaMO (and another newer offering that I'm forgetting the name of. Not Orka.) But again, that's money they probably don't have.

Then the MRSS needs a 5" gun (maker immaterial).

And yet this is one area where the RN is stuck. They have Sylver for PAAMS, they have the CAMM launchers, and they want Mk 41 going forward. (Sylver will likely die with the T45 successor but that's a way down the road.)

If MRSS gets any missiles at all, CAMM is the only one that makes sense to me, and the mushroom farm is what they've chosen. It's an incredibly simple launcher since all of the ejection and so forth is done in the canister with a frangible cap, no hot gas plenum, no moving doors, etc.

I agree CAMM is probably the only other option to ESSM, but the mission profile means you gotta deal with ballistic missile threats as well and I don't know how well CAMM (or ESSM) do versus those.

 

[Hood]

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.

That sounds like incompetent engineers to me, not politicians. They just say what the policy is and release the funds, ultimately the armed forces write the requirements and industry actually designs and builds the stuff.
Likewise if RR's shareholders want to get fat off MTU profits who is the government to complain?

If British industry can't deliver than maybe we should buy from South Korea.

 

[timmymagic]

f British industry can't deliver than maybe we should buy from South Korea.

We did that with the Tide Class....the design from BMT was excellent....the build by the South Koreans....less so. A lot of rectification work for A & P and Cammell Laird though...

Thing is, the RN has already bought 57mm and 40mm for the Type 31s. Adding another medium gun caliber is not practical. If they want guided rounds, 57mm does offer that in the form of ALaMO (and another newer offering that I'm forgetting the name of. Not Orka.) But again, that's money they probably don't have.

Think you mean MADFIRES...but that is dead as a dodo...

The RN has got itself in a muddle on VLS and Guns. Which is incredibly frustrating because they were heading down the right path 15 years ago...155mm TMF replacing 4.5, a new mid calibre (probably CT40), 30mm Bushmaster and 20mm on Phalanx. You could argue that a 76mm would be useful in the mix but its just a niggling point. Incidentally CT40 can have a guided round...re-using the Dart from Starstreak in a sabot round....

Now we've got....5" Mk45 (and the most expensive, advanced version to boot)...only we've put it on the vessels that we will not risk for NGFS (T26)...4.5" on Type 45...only without AD capability, we also won't risk T45 on NGFS....57mm on T31, the vessel that should do NGFS....40mm Bofors, 30mm Bushmaster, 30mm KCB and 20mm Phalanx. None of them made in the UK....(with the exception of 4.5 that is no longer in production).

Similar story with VL..they picked Sylver so should just stick with it. Mk.41 doesn't bring anything for the UK. If they wanted Mk.41 so bad they should have specced it for Sea Viper.

And to think the RN are the more sensible of the services at present...

 

[TomS]

Think you mean MADFIRES...but that is dead as a dodo...

Nah, this one:

Northrop Grumman to Develop New Guided Ammunition for the US Navy

PLYMOUTH, Minn. – Oct. 4, 2023 – The U.S. Navy has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) a development contract for the company’s newly designed 57mm guided high explosive ammunition. Designated for use with the Mk110 Naval Gun Mount, the...

news.northropgrumman.com

 

[timmymagic]

Nah, this one:

Northrop Grumman to Develop New Guided Ammunition for the US Navy

PLYMOUTH, Minn. – Oct. 4, 2023 – The U.S. Navy has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) a development contract for the company’s newly designed 57mm guided high explosive ammunition. Designated for use with the Mk110 Naval Gun Mount, the...

news.northropgrumman.com

How many guided 57mm rounds has the US funded for development to date? I'm losing track....they might actually field one one of these days...

 

[Moose]

How many guided 57mm rounds has the US funded for development to date? I'm losing track....they might actually field one one of these days...

ALaMo was adopted as Mk332 and is in service.

 

[TomS]

How many guided 57mm rounds has the US funded for development to date? I'm losing track....they might actually field one one of these days...

Nothing compared to 127mm over the years.

Really there has been just one actual procurement program. Orka and ALaMo were competing solutions to a single requirement. ALaMo won and is being fielded.

MadFires was DARPA, so of course it's dead. More seriously, it was a bit of a moonshot and maybe ended up being overly complex.

The new Northrop Grumman round is a bit of a cipher. There's been no mention of a competition, AFAIK, and I can't actually find the contract award either, so I'm a bit unsure at how it came about. It doesn't seem like an RCO-like sole-source procurement, but maybe it is? Or possibly they ran a quiet competition between NG and Raytheon, with this concept beating out MAD-FIRES. Hard to know unless someone opens up a bit.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RN has got itself in a muddle on VLS and Guns. Which is incredibly frustrating because they were heading down the right path 15 years ago...155mm TMF replacing 4.5, a new mid calibre (probably CT40), 30mm Bushmaster and 20mm on Phalanx. You could argue that a 76mm would be useful in the mix but its just a niggling point. Incidentally CT40 can have a guided round...re-using the Dart from Starstreak in a sabot round....

Now we've got....5" Mk45 (and the most expensive, advanced version to boot)...only we've put it on the vessels that we will not risk for NGFS (T26)...4.5" on Type 45...only without AD capability, we also won't risk T45 on NGFS....

Which is why the MRSS needs to have a 5" gun. Or at least the OTO 76mm with Vulcano.

57mm on T31, the vessel that should do NGFS....

How the hell did the Type 31 NOT get a 5" gun?!? Or at least the OTO 76mm with Vulcano if topweight is an issue?

40mm Bofors, 30mm Bushmaster, 30mm KCB and 20mm Phalanx. None of them made in the UK....(with the exception of 4.5 that is no longer in production).

Don't Bushmaster and KCB at least use the same ammunition?

Similar story with VL..they picked Sylver so should just stick with it. Mk.41 doesn't bring anything for the UK. If they wanted Mk.41 so bad they should have specced it for Sea Viper.

Mk41 gives you access to the American weapons. Specifically Tomahawk, and whatever other land attack missiles the USN cooks up.

 

[Rhinocrates]

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.

Keeping that in mind, how might the various proposals compare? What has been proposed so far are shots in the dark without a visible target but now that target's visible. I expect some substantial evolution to happen.

BMT's ELLIDA is arguably the most mature in terms of development but renders show a couple of CIWS and zero offensive armament. Likewise BAE's and neither design in their present form seem to have much facility for more to be added without a major redesign. In contrast Steller's is bristling with a variety of weapons. Maybe it even has a French Taunter.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

Right. What are we considering a medium-threat environment, though?

I'm calling the Red Sea medium threat right now, with low threat being the various pirate-infested areas of the world. And high threat being near-peer warfare.

What are you calling medium threat? More importantly, what is the UK calling medium threat?

Keeping that in mind, how might the various proposals compare? What has been proposed so far are shots in the dark without a visible target but now that target's visible. I expect some substantial evolution to happen.

BMT's ELLIDA is arguably the most mature in terms of development but renders show a couple of CIWS and zero offensive armament. Likewise BAE's and neither design in their present form seem to have much facility for more to be added without a major redesign. In contrast Steller's is bristling with a variety of weapons. Maybe it even has a French Taunter.

(edit) Assuming the Red Sea is medium threat.

Steller's may be a bit overgunned, since it looks like it has a 5" forward, Bushmaster and CIWS amidships, and what I'm assuming is an OTO 76mm on top of the hangar. In addition, it's got a VLS of some type forward, which I am assuming is a CAMM "mushroom farm."

I think I'd drop the bow gun to another OTO 76mm. No sense in having both 5" and 76mm.

I'd rather give the CIWS wider arcs, so I'd want to swap the locations of the Bushmaster and CIWS. Can make a small deck extension/sponson to allow the Bushmaster wider arcs even if it is down on the main deck. And I might want 4x Bushmasters, honestly. One below each corner of the flight deck and the other two roughly amidships.

My concern is how capable CAMM is against AShBMs, even the low end ones that the Houthis are getting.

(edit) The other designs are inadequately protected for the Red Sea without escorts.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Right. What are we considering a medium-threat environment, though?

I'm calling the Red Sea medium threat right now, with low threat being the various pirate-infested areas of the world. And high threat being near-peer warfare.

What are you calling medium threat? More importantly, what is the UK calling medium threat?

I agree. I'd add the harassment and intimidation that Iran has carried out as medium threat - brinksmanship, not outright war.

Steller's may be a bit overgunned, since it looks like it has a 5" forward, Bushmaster and CIWS amidships, and what I'm assuming is an OTO 76mm on top of the hangar. In addition, it's got a VLS of some type forward, which I am assuming is a CAMM "mushroom farm."

I think I'd drop the bow gun to another OTO 76mm. No sense in having both 5" and 76mm.

I'd rather give the CIWS wider arcs, so I'd want to swap the locations of the Bushmaster and CIWS. Can make a small deck extension/sponson to allow the Bushmaster wider arcs even if it is down on the main deck. And I might want 4x Bushmasters, honestly. One below each corner of the flight deck and the other two roughly amidships.

My concern is how capable CAMM is against AShBMs, even the low end ones that the Houthis are getting.

(edit) The other designs are inadequately protected for the Red Sea without escorts.

Generally agree, especially regarding the Bushmasters, though maybe the bow gun is considered necessary as offshore artillery support for commando groups when things get messy.

It appears to have a Dragonfire director on each mast too. They would be for drones and at least low end AShBMs.

 

[timmymagic]

Don't Bushmaster and KCB at least use the same ammunition?

They do. KCB entered service well before Bushmaster though, and will be retired in due course.

Mk41 gives you access to the American weapons. Specifically Tomahawk, and whatever other land attack missiles the USN cooks up.

US weapons are no use for the UK. We don't use US SAM's, and never will, Tomahawk is not used on surface ships by the UK and never will be with FCASW arriving c2028/2030. The only other operational missile is VL-ASROC which is old, short ranged and fitted with a inferior torpedo.

Excluding the Japanese Type 07 that was not for export there are zero non-US weapons integrated with Mk.41 after 40 years of service...for the UK its utterly pointless. Koreans have even gone and developed their own VL system to integrate their own missiles...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Good eyes on the Dragonfires!

The reason I'm comfortable with dropping a 5" for the OTO 76mm is the range on the Vulcano shells: 40km.

Going with the OTOBreda 127mm/64 and Vulcano rounds would give a 120km range, of course.

======

Though I guess I do have another question about that design: Why does it have at least one OTO 76mm Supraponte, which weighs just as much as a Phalanx CIWS system, in addition to a pair of Phalanx guns? Why didn't they put more Supraponte where the Phalanx guns are?

US weapons are no use for the UK. We don't use US SAM's, and never will, Tomahawk is not used on surface ships by the UK and never will be with FCASW arriving c2028/2030. The only other operational missile is VL-ASROC which is old, short ranged and fitted with a inferior torpedo.

Excluding the Japanese Type 07 that was not for export there are zero non-US weapons integrated with Mk.41 after 40 years of service...for the UK its utterly pointless. Koreans have even gone and developed their own VL system to integrate their own missiles...

Then why the HELL has RN specified Mk41 launchers in their new ships?!?

 

[Hood]

As we've said many times before, on armament issues the RN seems all over the place.
I think anyone who thinks FLSS is going to be a Super T26 is going to be sadly disappointed - it will be lucky if it gets a decent CIWS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think anyone who thinks FLSS is going to be a Super T26 is going to be sadly disappointed - it will be lucky if it gets a decent CIWS.

Then it will not be able to operate alone in a medium threat environment.

Which is apparently one of the major requirements.

 

[timmymagic]

Then why the HELL has RN specified Mk41 launchers in their new ships?!?

God knows....the only useful potential aspect of it is that CAMM-MR will twin-pack in it, and ExLS exists....

 

[Rhinocrates]

The reason I'm comfortable with dropping a 5" for the OTO 76mm is the range on the Vulcano shells: 40km.

Going with the OTOBreda 127mm/64 and Vulcano rounds would give a 120km range, of course.

======

Though I guess I do have another question about that design: Why does it have at least one OTO 76mm Supraponte, which weighs just as much as a Phalanx CIWS system, in addition to a pair of Phalanx guns? Why didn't they put more Supraponte where the Phalanx guns are?

Well, this might be ironed out if Steller gets the job and they start to take account of the mix and match they can do depending on the mission. A requirement for interoperability with systems commonly used by allies, which also has driven the Challenger 3 MBT design, would support you. Starmer's government has signalled that it wants to further collaboration with European forces, so standardisation with allies looks like a good course. I'm all for as much standardisation with allies as possible even if in individual cases might not be ideal, because in the real world there's going to be a lot of begging, borrowing, and trading when supplies run low.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Should the Royal Navy consider an alternative approach to Multi-Role Support Ship design? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I am dubious, to say the least.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Should the Royal Navy consider an alternative approach to Multi-Role Support Ship design? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I am dubious, to say the least.

Absurd.

 

[TomS]

Should the Royal Navy consider an alternative approach to Multi-Role Support Ship design? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I am dubious, to say the least.

Even the USN is unconvinced about the viability of the USMC's wished-for LSM, which seems like a Large, Slow (Missile) Magnet* to me. And at least the USN has the advantage of using them (in theory) only as complements to a proper amphib force.

* Riffing on the standard nickname for the LST as a Large, Slow Target.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Following Reaction Engines going into administration, more bad news:

British naval design firm Steller Systems faces liquidation

Steller Systems, a British naval architecture and marine engineering firm, is facing a winding-up petition filed by HMRC over unpaid debts.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Hood]

But on the other hand...

DE&S awards Naval Design Partnering contract

Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) has awarded Frazer-Nash Consultancy a new 'Naval Design Partnering' contract to establish and manage a framework for delivering technical design services for the Royal Navy.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk