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

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
21,137
Reaction score
12,224
1586788310039.png

www.savetheroyalnavy.org

A closer look at the Littoral Strike Ship concept | Navy Lookout

www.savetheroyalnavy.org www.savetheroyalnavy.org

In February 2019, the then Defence Minister, Gavin Williamson, announced the plan to rapidly procure vessels around which two ‘Littoral Strike Groups’ would be formed. Here we look further at the Future Littoral Strike Ship (FLSS) concept and at the design developed by Prevail Partners as one of the potential candidates to meet this requirement.


Background
Since the ministerial announcement, there has been limited further official comment about the FLSS concept, although the previous First Sea Lord was enthusiastic about “refreshing our littoral strike credentials” when speaking at RUSI in May 2019. £35M has been allocated from the MoD’s Transformation Fund for the development of FLSS although, at the time of writing, no commercial company has received a contract for detailed design work. The concept clearly makes sense but information in the public domain is sketchy.
The FLSS has been evolved from an earlier Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) pre-concept study undertaken between 2017-2018. Conducted by the MoD’s Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team, the MRSS study was tasked to consider options for replacing the LPDs, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark as well as other amphibious capabilities. The FLSS are intended to be procured quickly to complement the LPDs, rather than replace them. The FLSS is unlikely to fly the White Ensign and may either be operated as a Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or more likely run as a government-chartered vessel.
MV Ocean Trader is a merchant ship conversion belonging to the US Military Sea Lift Command and was perhaps the inspiration for the FLSS. Ocean Trader is not painted all-grey and looks like a typical merchant vessel in appearance. Iran also operates the MV Saviz, supposedly a general cargo vessel but in fact used as an offshore surveillance and special forces base, recently operating in the Red Sea probably supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen. At times there are advantages to not advertising the military capabilities of a vessel.
Click to expand...
 
MVs would make easy large Arsenal Ship conversions. They are also large enough for sub/orbital VGS w/ deep magazines.
 
A little more information on the Prevail Partners' proposal:
navaltoday.com

First proposal for the Royal Navy's new Littoral Strike Ships unveiled

British risk advisory company Prevail Partners has unveiled its proposal for the Royal Navy’s two new littoral strike ships which were announced by the UK defense secretary earlier this month. Prevail say their multi role vessel (MRV) was designed as a mobile logistic and helicopter base...
navaltoday.com navaltoday.com
 
Last edited:
A 'rented' navy? Now THAT is groundbreaking, not on though. What next? Hazard pay?
 
It does seem increasingly likely that the final ship won't be like this, but will replace Albion and Bulwark. they are conspicuously not in future graphics/presentations and so on.

Which sounds awful, but then the lack of a hangar really dooms these ships in their utility outside of a large formed group, i.e. in company with QE/PoW. Their crew is also quite large and the very large dock is sized around Brigade level vehicle assaults.

It would be nice to meet the people who deleted the deck and hangar in the early 90s as a (small) cost saving. Absolutely stupid, and the Falklands had just shown you literally could not even make enough helo carriers even with grossly unsuitable ad hoc conversions.

Like destroyers in the first/second world wars, there are never enough helos now. Which is an interesting thought, a Wildcat can pretty much do exactly what most classic DDs could do, a Merlin considerably better on the ASW front. Not so much on shooting down ac, but then, destroyers hardly actually did and the helo isn't sailing around waiting to be bombed.

In terms of FLSS - something with accommodation incl. empty command rooms (where the unit embarked brings its own server - laptops), small dock, large hangar, multi-mission boat space would be pretty good for the RM vision. Of course until they change this back to Bde level ops just as the ships complete....

Not sure on Phalanx? I suppose in case of rogue missiles, but this ship will hardly have a manned ops room with organic 3D radar and EW systems (ala T23) so unless you leave them on all the time, how would you even know anything was inbound until boooooom? I'm pretty certain they don't leave these in auto mode - there is a control desk in Ops rooms specifically for them. Which also points to just how far away robot warriors are...
 
A littoral strike vessel?
Don't make me laugh, its a cargo boat with a big space in the superstructure for helicopters.

If this is a littoral strike vessel, then what is a pickup with a ZSU-23 on the back? An Advanced Multi-Role All-Terrain Aerial Domain Denial Vehicle?

Foo Fighter said:
A 'rented' navy? Now THAT is groundbreaking, not on though. What next? Hazard pay?
Click to expand...

I have long speculated whether Britain will be the first nation to completely privatise its armed forces.
It is the slice of a rather growing wedge. We already plan on building glorified patrol boat 'frigates', so why not just let a contract for a firm to operate a fleet of OPVs?
Industry already maintains most of the RAF, why not get them to provide the pilots too? Once the UCAV generation arrives and pilots aren't needed then why bother with an RAF and just have a contracted UAV service?
Its not a million miles away from today and its not even parody sadly.
 
it is a stupid title yes.

I don’t get the renting obsession either. I think it is purely because in year 1 it is cheaper to rent than pay the capital, even if after uear 10 (or5) renting has become more expensive.

I also suspect politicans are fed up with the time and cost the MOD take to do anything, so the rented options look good as contractors when given that free hand (note not when having to work closely with MOD) tend to deliver quite quickly and the politician has a sense of actually influencing things in their timeline.

However Senior Officers seem to see privatisation as (a) a way to get rid of people in cap badges/branches/divisions that aren’t their own thus freeing resources for their own and (b) revolving door.

So really it is a fit up across the board. Output doesn’t really feature!
 
They should have learnt from the various PFI fiasco's; if it costs £50 to change the lightbulb in a static school how much for a moving ship?
 
I have made this point elsewhere, but it seems to be more of a problem for the RN than for the RAF or Army. Nearly all the duties assigned to the RN in peacetime do not require heavily armed or capable warships.
The RAF uses its Typhoons with full AAM load to patrol airspace. The Army is using a variety of its weapons in NATO, UN and bilateral operations as well as potential anti terrorist duties.
The RN does have its submarine force. A V class boat still carries the national deterrent. A T or A class boat may from time to time fire Tomahawks at someone. They also work with the USN patroling against the Rooskies.
The surface ships, however, are not going to fire a Harpoon at boatloads of migrants (Sorry Home Secretary not legal) or down a hijacked plane with an Aster.
The amphibious warfare ships are a legacy of Suez and the Falklands. Marines are more likely to fly out from Brize Norton than storm ashore from Bulwark.
 
uk 75 said:
....
The amphibious warfare ships are a legacy of Suez and the Falklands. Marines are more likely to fly out from Brize Norton than storm ashore from Bulwark.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a local airport in friendly hands isn't guaranteed, & nor is access to a local port. The LPDs & LSDs could be very useful for landing & supplying troops & their equipment, even where there's no need to storm ashore on a defended beach.
 
swerve The problem is that this capability has been rarely used. Airfields and runways are much more widely spread than they were in the 50s and 60s. Heavy equipment can be airlifted by the RAF or even civilian contractors.
I agree if resources were available the capability offered by an modern LHD such as the Mistral class would be "desirable". But it would come at the price of items such as frigate/destroyers or SSNs which I see as "essential".
The current RN is greatly distorted by the CVF programme just as France's was by the Charles De Gaulle.
The RN also pays a heavy price for being the "national deterrent". Sadly unlike V Bombers, SSBNs are "one trick ponys".
 
So the Littoral Strike Ship is still a Ro-Ro ferry then with a couple of Phalanx bolted on and a strike capability if you happen to drive the right lorry trailers onto the top deck. Essentially this mirrors the current USMC ATACMS strategy, which even they seem to have doubts about without a longer-ranged munition. Also, Britain doesn't have any Tomahawk TELs.
Rather than parking some Brimstone Ajaxes or even Ajax with hypothetical CAAM-ER land-attack missiles on the deck (which you can't if its cluttered up with Chinooks) I'd still favour packing that kind of firepower onto a frigate with decent VLS silo numbers.
Why bother with this when we still have the Point-class for surge Ro-Ro capability. Just build a couple of LPD, it can't be that hard surely?
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Rather than parking some Brimstone Ajaxes or even Ajax with hypothetical CAAM-ER land-attack missiles on the deck (which you can't if its cluttered up with Chinooks) I'd still favour packing that kind of firepower onto a frigate with decent VLS silo numbers.
Click to expand...
MBDA were pushing quad-packed vertical launch Sea Spear a few years ago (SPEAR 3 in naval uniform), definitely superior to anything currently on an Ajax*, but lacking if you need something with a Storm Shadow scale warhead. I don't see FLSS going anywhere without an escort, and if that escort happens to have strike length VLS cells, then there's MdCN (and eventually Perseus) if they're Sylver, or Tomahawk if they're Mk 41. If it doesn't have strike length cells then quad-packed Sea Spear is still a better option. If the FLSS were to have VLS silos of its own then that makes things a bit more interesting.

* If you went CAMM-ER, then the Sky Sabre TELs would make more sense than Ajax, at worst you might have to extend the wheelbase a metre or so, but it's possible the ER cannisters will fit the baseline vehicle.
 
Nice to find out more about the plans.
Feels a little like the LSS label is an MoD marketing stunt, basically they want a permanent hangar and some command spaces. And I assume these would still be RFA vessels so unlikely to be 'strike' assets by the dictionary definitions of the word strike. But it does bring them more into proper LSD territory.

Given the low budget and the awkward deck layout, the LSS Bay Plus concept seems the most likely.
 
The original plan to convert the Bays seems to have been set aside and instead it appears that RFA Argus will be refitted for the LSS role instead and will serve alongside the Bays in their current configuration.
As the article points out, a large amount of refit work might be required to extend her life to her fiftieth year. Its not the most optimal choice compared to refitting a Bay, but its something at least. The Bays have a well deck but lack a hangar, Argus has a hangar but lacks a well deck - swings and roundabouts and maybe it was found that Argus had more internal space for the new command spaces too.

www.navylookout.com

The oldest ship in the Royal Naval Service to become the new Littoral Strike Ship | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
Can anyone catch me up on how many of these ships may be produced, and is the size of the Royal Marines (~8,000) adequate to handle this amphibious force? Has there been a suggestion of increasing the size of the standing military, or does the UK have procedures in place for rapid recruitment and training if NATO Article 5 became an issue?

Based on what the long-term geopolitical climate looks like at the moment, I believe NATO has the defense of Europe on land, in the sea, and in the skies on lockdown without the UK and US. The Czechs just announced acquisition plans for two squadrons of F-35s and acquisition of ~200 CV-90 IFVs, along with numerous other countries bumping their capabilities/spending, and the addition of Finland and Sweden will absolutely be critical in the northern seas and as a massive land blockage.

So, China and whatever Russia decides to send over in the way of their ships will likely be the largest threat over the next few decades. The US has partners in Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines, but the ROK is absolutely focused on NK and it would be unlikely for them to assist in any conflict unless NK was also active. The US could truly use a high-quality ally for amphibious operations in a potential Pacific conflict (China, from their leader to their citizens, all seem to be extremely hateful towards the US for a while now - so many Chinese post-anti-US rhetoric after they've graduated from their US university of course), and I wonder if this is the reason for this expanded amphibious capability by the UK? Thanks.
 
jamison884 said:
Can anyone catch me up on how many of these ships may be produced, and is the size of the Royal Marines (~8,000) adequate to handle this amphibious force? Has there been a suggestion of increasing the size of the standing military, or does the UK have procedures in place for rapid recruitment and training if NATO Article 5 became an issue?

Based on what the long-term geopolitical climate looks like at the moment, I believe NATO has the defense of Europe on land, in the sea, and in the skies on lockdown without the UK and US. The Czechs just announced acquisition plans for two squadrons of F-35s and acquisition of ~200 CV-90 IFVs, along with numerous other countries bumping their capabilities/spending, and the addition of Finland and Sweden will absolutely be critical in the northern seas and as a massive land blockage.

So, China and whatever Russia decides to send over in the way of their ships will likely be the largest threat over the next few decades. The US has partners in Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines, but the ROK is absolutely focused on NK and it would be unlikely for them to assist in any conflict unless NK was also active. The US could truly use a high-quality ally for amphibious operations in a potential Pacific conflict (China, from their leader to their citizens, all seem to be extremely hateful towards the US for a while now - so many Chinese post-anti-US rhetoric after they've graduated from their US university of course), and I wonder if this is the reason for this expanded amphibious capability by the UK? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well, the USN MEU is about 1500-2000 Marines, but that's including all the bodies in the Air Wing which aren't part of the Royal Marines organization (which I kinda disagree with, but that's a different discussion).

I think it works out to about 1000 infantry/ground vehicle USMarines, spread across 3 ships in the US model. Do the Royals include any AAV and/or other ground vehicle crew in their number, or are they very pure infantry? If not, then the total is down to about 600 infantry deployed.

The UK would then have RAF or RN types flying F-35s, RAF flying Chinooks, and probably RN driving whatever landing craft are in use.
 
jamison884 said:
Can anyone catch me up on how many of these ships may be produced, and is the size of the Royal Marines (~8,000) adequate to handle this amphibious force? Has there been a suggestion of increasing the size of the standing military, or does the UK have procedures in place for rapid recruitment and training if NATO Article 5 became an issue?
Click to expand...
Rather than increasing the size of the military, it's still decreasing, Army down to 75,000 from 85,000, and the Future Commando Force is projected at 4,000, down from 7,000.

It's worth noting that the Littoral Readiness Groups only deploy a company of Marines (plus a slice of 3 Commando Brigade support assets for a total of 250). One Commando is assigned to each of the two Littoral Readiness Groups, but each rotates its 4 companies through being forward deployed.

While there is concern about whether the whole concept is being properly resourced, the RM do seem to be getting some fairly significant investment at the smaller scale end of things, they only re-equipped with the L119 (Diemaco C8) c2019 and now they're getting the L403A1 (Knight-Stoner KS-1) for the Strike companies and there seems to be a lot of experimentation with small UAVs and related tech.

en.wikipedia.org

Future Commando Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Scott Kenny said:
Do the Royals include any AAV and/or other ground vehicle crew in their number, or are they very pure infantry?
Click to expand...

It's important to understand 3 Commando Brigade isn't a pure RM unit, it's had Army units assigned going back to the Cold War, manning was 70% RM, 30% Army, though how accurate that is now I don't know. 40, 42 and 45 Commandos* are light role infantry, though leaning over towards Marine Raiders/special forces with this new LRG tasking, but other RM units include:
30 Commando Information Exploitation Group are ISTAR specialists, including the Brigade Patrol Troop (formerly the Falklands era Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre), roughly equivalent to USMC Force Recon.
43 Commando Fleet Protection Group (formerly Commachio Group) handle force protection worldwide and nuclear weapons security in the UK. They used to do Maritime CTW, but that role was switched over to the SBS.
47 Commando (Raiding Group), formerly 1 Assault Group, is the RM's specialist amphibious unit, driving not just landing craft, but fast raiding craft, so equivalent to the USN Riverine Warfare units.
Commando Logistic Regiment - does all the logistics support functions for the Brigade, significantly RN manned, but anyone assigned to 3 Commando Brigade can do the All Arms Commando Course.
Royal Marines Armoured Support Group with the BvS10 Viking - whether they're part of the Commando Logistic Regiment or 47 Commando depends on which source you read.

Army units assigned include:

24 Commando Regiment, Royal Engineers
29 Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery with 3 batteries of 105mm Light Guns.

The Cold War assumption was 3 Commando Brigade would be reinforced in wartime with a squadron of the Life Guards in Scorpion/Scimitar. Whether there's any similar assumption nowadays I don't know.

And then there's the Commando Helicopter Force, two Naval Air Squadrons with Merlin and one with Wildcat.

* Plus one of the Dutch Marine Combat Groups at full strength.
 
DWG said:
* Plus one of the Dutch Marine Combat Groups at full strength.
Click to expand...
The Korps Mariniers were so thoroughly integrated into 3 Cdo Bde that, in 1982, they automatically began preparing for war alongside the Royals, and had to be ordered to stop.
Scott Kenny said:
the Royals include any AAV and/or other ground vehicle crew in their number, or are they very pure infantry? If not, then the total is down to about 600 infantry deployed.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's about right - a Royal Marine Commando at full strength is pure light infantry and about 650 people. I'm not sure if there are any light vehicles in there.

The Royal Marine Armoured Support Group is theoretically equivalent to an USMC Amtrak battalion, but equipped very differently.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The Korps Mariniers were so thoroughly integrated into 3 Cdo Bde that, in 1982, they automatically began preparing for war alongside the Royals, and had to be ordered to stop.
Click to expand...

The Korps Mariniers (RNLMC) has recently also been adapting towards a new operational concept very similar to the Royal Marine Commando's. The focus (for both units) will be light raids instead of larger amphibious assaults.

The RNLN an RN will operate 2 different classes of ships but they wil be able to operate each others helicopters and landing craft.
 
Maybe rename the thread MRSS or suchlike? I can't find one on that subject with a quick search and don't want to ignore the posts above.

Anyway, following confirmation that RN MRSS will go ahead,

www.navylookout.com

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

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

Steller Systems has presented its concept

www.navylookout.com

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

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Fearless – Britain’s future amphibious warship?

The Fearless class by Steller Systems is designed for amphibious operations, with potential frigate-level armament, and can launch Commando Insertion Craft and drones.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

www.navalnews.com

Fearless MRSS: Enabling Littoral A2AD Pushback, Raiding and Landing Operations - Naval News

Steller Systems unveiled today at CNE 2024 its Fearless-class, a new concept vessel combining the characteristics of an UxV mothership...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWg1dOGlak
 
BMT's approach to MRSS, second iteration.

www.navylookout.com

BMT develop second generation ELLIDA multi-role and logistic vessel concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

First iteration:

www.navylookout.com

In focus: the BMT ELLIDA multi-role and logistics vessel concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

From the Navy Lookout article in the previous post:

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.

It appears that BMT emphasises logistical support while Steller's emphasises broad tactical support.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Not sure on Phalanx? I suppose in case of rogue missiles, but this ship will hardly have a manned ops room with organic 3D radar and EW systems (ala T23) so unless you leave them on all the time, how would you even know anything was inbound until boooooom? I'm pretty certain they don't leave these in auto mode - there is a control desk in Ops rooms specifically for them. Which also points to just how far away robot warriors are...
Click to expand...
Phalanx have a semi-auto mode, where a live person has to push the fire button.

But I expect that there will be a longer ranged air search radar installed to look for missiles to give some warning to turn the Phalanx guns to semi or auto.



Rhinocrates said:
Interesting propulsion system, discussed in the Naval News video.

View attachment 729745
Click to expand...
Azipod with a screw turning the opposite direction of the main shafts? interesting!
 
Mc spoilt b’stard said:
The Korps Mariniers (RNLMC) has recently also been adapting towards a new operational concept very similar to the Royal Marine Commando's. The focus (for both units) will be light raids instead of larger amphibious assaults.

The RNLN an RN will operate 2 different classes of ships but they wil be able to operate each others helicopters and landing craft.
Click to expand...
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.
www.navalnews.com

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 www.navalnews.com
swzmaritime.nl

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 swzmaritime.nl

So maybe the Steller design will come nearer to meeting their needs.
 
EwenS said:
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.
www.navalnews.com

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 www.navalnews.com
swzmaritime.nl

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 swzmaritime.nl

So maybe the Steller design will come nearer to meeting their needs.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Singapore's Endurance class could do that. They're 140 meters and 8500 tons. They look like really useful ships, but I'm a fan of a lot of Singapore's homegrown army and navy equipment.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Maybe rename the thread MRSS or suchlike? I can't find one on that subject with a quick search and don't want to ignore the posts above.

Anyway, following confirmation that RN MRSS will go ahead,

www.navylookout.com

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

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

Steller Systems has presented its concept

www.navylookout.com

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

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Fearless – Britain’s future amphibious warship?

The Fearless class by Steller Systems is designed for amphibious operations, with potential frigate-level armament, and can launch Commando Insertion Craft and drones.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

www.navalnews.com

Fearless MRSS: Enabling Littoral A2AD Pushback, Raiding and Landing Operations - Naval News

Steller Systems unveiled today at CNE 2024 its Fearless-class, a new concept vessel combining the characteristics of an UxV mothership...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWg1dOGlak
Click to expand...
This thing appears to be a very large “colonial cruiser,” solely for small unit operations and not meaningful battalion sized landings. I can’t see how this fits into any confrontation with a “near peer” adversary or even a replay of a Falklands scenario. The Bay Class have been deployed to the Caribbean and the Dutch are pondering an OPV role as well. Still, what is the point of this? It’s a beautiful design, I have to admit.
 
TinWing said:
This thing appears to be a very large “colonial cruiser,” solely for small unit operations and not meaningful battalion sized landings. I can’t see how this fits into any confrontation with a “near peer” adversary or even a replay of a Falklands scenario. The Bay Class have been deployed to the Caribbean and the Dutch are pondering an OPV role as well. Still, what is the point of this? It’s a beautiful design, I have to admit.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting 3 of them to go someplace at once, to put an entire battalion or so ashore.

Which is honestly the USN model for Amphibious Ready Groups, just with 3 of the same class instead of 3x different classes hauling different parts of the battalion.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting 3 of them to go someplace at once, to put an entire battalion or so ashore.

Which is honestly the USN model for Amphibious Ready Groups, just with 3 of the same class instead of 3x different classes hauling different parts of the battalion.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom