Hard to understate what a massive upgrade both the T26 and the 'frigate factory' are.

Shame like many things in the UK is all happens too late.

If RN build 6x LPDs for the MRSS requirement technology will leave them behind in a decade or so. A big simple ship with a big well deck, big hanger, big flight deck will be capable of operating lots of drone boats, drone subs, drone aircraft, and the human equipped equivalents. The host form facto...

Or, how about this? The San Giorgio is an interesting case, more of a through deck LPD than an LPH. While San Giorgio looks cool, it doesn't have more any functionality than the Bay Class, because it lacks a hangar. Perhaps this is why Italians are not replacing them like for like, instead opting f...

jedibeeftrix wrote: ↑06 Nov 2023, 09:14 The T31 was envisaged as a temporary addition to the fleet... So it seems to me that there is plenty of room for T32 as a successor class modifying the original to maximise the mission module and integrate with upsized davits.

This is exactly how the T32 should play out

By designing from the outset as a low cost flattop Nothing I've seen hints this is possible. The Canberra and Trieste cost over £1billion each, built in Spain and Italy respectively, which are well known to be lower cost than building in the UK. Furthermore while the Bay Class can be run with a sma...

Could the future Amphibious fleet be primarily used as a means of sea control/sea denial and A2/AD in the Littoral rather than Amphibious Assault? Yes If so the MRSS is headed in completely the wrong direction Not really, that's why "multi role support" is in the name. Easy to imagine a f...

If you can operate the MRSS is a disaggregated way why not the ARG? They can, its just more difficult when the ships are different and more complicated. MRSS should be aiming for River Class type operations, double crewed, high availability and globally distributed. third flattop allows for two dut...

The Royal Navy now operates the two silver bullets of naval power (nuke boats & super carriers). The Navy is quite rightly flexing that as much as possibly because it's costs them so much!

Two operational carriers to maintain one carrier group is pretty much none negotiable.

That way you have up to date, well maintained carrier strike available 24/7 360 days a year, with a short break every three years when you swap ships and work up the QE class emerging from refit. This is a very bad take. This is what's been happening with the LPDs, yielding terrible availability an...

The advantage is a simple fleet of MRSS can be in 4 places at once, similar to how the River Class are used today. A mini carrier group can only be in one place. Amphibious assaults are incredibly rare, making the distributed approach much more usable in the real world. When things do heat up, the d...

highly automated AI driven large escorts with a crew of 60, then it simply won't happen. That is what they're waiting for. The T31 has almost half the crew of the T23, and the T83 should target a third of the crew of the T45. This is the most pressing issue the Navy needs to design for. Both the ha...

This would result in... The end result is reasonable, if not over ambitious in the ordering. The above would mean designing an LPH right now, and accelerated over the other Navy projects, with both time and money. Furthermore it means standing up a third carrier before the QE carriers have matured ...

new guy wrote: ↑01 Nov 2023, 16:23 EPP & ESP?

I forget exactly what they standard for, one is equipment procurement project, and the other is equipment support project I think.

Important bit is;
EPP is buying new kit
ESP is servicing existing kit

The bar chart is all navy equipotent except submarines.

There is a spreadsheet that further breaks this down to just ships;

The bit we're interested in is EPP Uncommitted. The chart is for all Navy Equipment excluding submarines. If you drill down into the spreadsheet its around £1.2 Billion each year for shipbuilding.

It has no budget because its so far in the future. The defence equipment plan has £1.2 Billion is allocated to ships each year, and in the early 30's the only commitment is the Type 26 build, which is not costing £1.2 Billion a year, so the equipotent plan does leave space for the T32 if prioritised.

Ignoring trying to build a carrier half the size of QE for one fifth the price, how does a single LPH achieve amphibious renewal?

Basically the above is advocating life extension over renewal. It's reasonable, and pushes the problem further down the road, running old ships harder for longer, like the Navy is struggling to do with the T23's. I'm not convinced this is better than selling off ships and building new ones, like the...

Wishful thinking has not played out well for the MOD. Any uplift will be gobbled up filling existing holes, or headline projects, so the Navy need to plan for the minimum credible amphibious fleet. Good news is this is what they're doing asking for 6 MRSS! If they Navy get super lucky in the future,...

That is very much a non-story. Written questions are exclusively meaningless government waffle so avoid anything going on record with their name attached to it. Also a little moment to apricate what spectacular bollocks this is; We do not disclose the fine detail of forward availability forecasts to...

The whole problem with keeping the Albion class in service is the high crew/maintenance cost of the platforms. Given the downgrade of large-scale conops for 3Cdo it seems the right solution for the amphib fleet is to simplify, not double down of expensive complexity. Totally! We need only to look a...

Much like the FSS the hangar is too small, otherwise the design looks spot on for MRSS by being a simple and flexible design. It's basically the Bay Class with extra aviation capacity.

Then you mean, sacrificing several F35Bs or Typhoons, as you say RAF? The 'one in, one out' logic works well for ships, but doesn't work so well for aircraft, especially if they're drones. MROSS(1) and MHC-USV systems sacrificed HMS Echo and Enterprise, and Sandowns. MROSS(2) will sacrifice HMS Sco...

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 02:10 "By sacrificing what?" always comes into my mind. Not easy.

Nothing, extra surveillance of domestic waters should not be the focus of the Navy, its a job for the RAF.

The MROSS project is good, and should stay as being a small side project.

SW1 wrote: ↑27 Oct 2023, 13:59You use the airbases in those locations for surveillance and the ships for prosecution and interdiction.

This sums it up nicely.

Unfortunately the UK barely has enough aircraft for sub hunting nevermind maritime security tasks..