Multi-Role Support Ships (MRSS)

[RichardIC]

Who knows?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ve_age.pdf

Strategic and long-term investment will increase the capability of the Royal Navy’s surface
fleet and allow the development of:

Multi-Role Support Ships (MRSS), to provide the platforms to deliver Littoral Strike,
including Maritime Special Operations, in the early 2030s.

No number. No description.

[RichardIC]

Up to six confirmed by the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Up to six Multi-Role Support Ships
(MRSS), to provide the platforms
to deliver Littoral Strike, including
Maritime Special Operations, in the
early 2030s;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _FINAL.pdf

[Poiuytrewq]

Up to six confirmed by the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Ellida from BMT seems to be the current direction of travel for these, a design that I am not that impressed with, I think RN could do a lot better for the money.

Six multi-role logistics vessels is IMO the best way to proceed but not if the entire Amphib fleet gets binned to achieve it.

Currently it looks like the 3 Bays, Argus and both Albions will be decommissioned to make way for the MRSS vessels in the 2030's.

Adding a £50m fixed hanger to the Bays is something that I have been proposing for a considerable time but it's really just to offset the loss of Argus without replacement. A clear cut and loss of capability.

IMO either Ellida needs radically reconfigured or binned altogether for a modernised Enforcer design, which if properly configured, could prove to be a cost effective game changer for the FCF.

[RichardIC]

Ellida from BMT seems to be the current direction of travel for these, a design that I am not that impressed with, I think RN could do a lot better for the money.

Ellida isn't a design. It's an initial concept - it's essentially some marketing material. What don't you like?

IMO either Ellida needs radically reconfigured or binned altogether for a modernised Enforcer design

Aren't the Bays, which we're looking to replace, modified Enforcers?

[Poiuytrewq]

What don't you like?

Plenty.

As multi-role suggests, getting the balance of capabilities right is paramount but until we know more about what is expected of them it's impossible to know for sure what that blend would look like.

One thing is for sure, as currently configured, Ellida is not in anyway suited to high intensity, short duration littoral strike Ops. Combining multiple Ellida's within a Littoral Strike Group would help little if Argus or a modified Bay isn't also involved.

Aren't the Bays, which we're looking to replace, modified Enforcers?

Of course. What's your point?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Currently it looks like the 3 Bays, Argus and both Albions will be decommissioned to make way for the MRSS vessels in the 2030's.

Argus way before, and the rest in quick succession, both sides of the mid-point of that decade.

The fact that an Albion and a modified Bay will be used to try out the Littoral response concept would point to the new ones (shipping-wise, despite being more numerous) would fall into that range, as for their size.

[Jake1992]

What don't you like?

Plenty.

As multi-role suggests, getting the balance of capabilities right is paramount but until we know more about what is expected of them it's impossible to know for sure what that blend would look like.

One thing is for sure, as currently configured, Ellida is not in anyway suited to high intensity, short duration littoral strike Ops. Combining multiple Ellida's within a Littoral Strike Group would help little if Argus or a modified Bay isn't also involved.

Aren't the Bays, which we're looking to replace, modified Enforcers?

Of course. What's your point?

Iv often said on these thread that I think a certain design of vessel would work really well in replacing the waves but often got told it is too much ship trying to do too much in one but it seems to fit this role really well, I’d go for a slightly modified Karel Doorman class.

6 merlin / 2 chinook hanger
3 merlin / 2 chinook flight deck
2 LCVP dividens ( I’d change this to 4 )
100 embarked personal ( I’d change this to 200 )
2000 lane metres of vehicle deck ( I’d change this to 1000 )
Roughly 2/3 the solid / liquid / and fuel ras capacity as fort Vic

[Poiuytrewq]

The fact that an Albion and a modified Bay will be used to try out the Littoral response concept....

A fantastically capable pair. Add a Tide or Wave and a couple of T23's and Littoral Strike is very much a reality.

My main query would how 'modified' will the Bay actually become?

£50m should achieve everything required to add a full width 1000sqm hanger capable of housing 6 Merlins with maintenance clearances or more likely a highly versatile mix of Merlin/Wildcat and Apache.

[ArmChairCivvy]

£50m should achieve everything required to add a full width 1000sqm hanger capable of housing 6 Merlins with maintenance clearances or more likely a highly versatile mix of Merlin/Wildcat and Apache.

But the same 50 mln will also have to 'buy' habitability (and ship's services that go with supporting that) for 200+ over and above the crewing, over prolonged periods of time at sea

[RichardIC]

Plenty.

What?

One thing is for sure, as currently configured, Ellida is not in anyway suited to high intensity, short duration littoral strike Ops.

Why?

[Poiuytrewq]

Plenty.

What?

One thing is for sure, as currently configured, Ellida (as currently configured) is not in anyway suited to high intensity, short duration littoral strike Ops.

Why?

Let me be clear,

As a globally deployed HADR platform Ellida is almost perfect.

As a sea base for high intensity, short duration littoral strike Ops Ellida is lacking in almost every way (as currently configured) when compared to an Enforcer of similar dimensions (Ellida is substantially larger than a Bay class).

Combining Ellida with another complementary vessel to form the basis of an LRG may prove to be the best option but a common class of 6 MRSS would clearly be preferable from a commonality and availability standpoint.

If Ellida was reconfigured internally to allow for a permanent hanger capable of housing 4 Merlin with maintenance clearances alongside the current additional storage space for 3 Merlin (in the access between the flightdeck and the foredeck) then Ellida could be a viable option IMO. This would require the relocation of the hospital facilities onto another deck and therefore reduce logistic capacity.

Given the restructuring of the Army and RM perhaps this modest reduction of logistical capacity would now be an acceptable compromise however a 195mX30m Enforcer design would still be more spacious in comparison mainly due to the more generous dimensions of the superstructure.

[jedibeeftrix]

jungle drums seem to indicate that RM reduction is 400 from the full 3Cdo establishement of ~6,500 and not the ~2,200 in the 3.5x Commandos (which would indicate a much bigger cut in the wider establishment).

to me at least, this suggest that there will remain a useful quantity of the armoured mobility, CS, CSS, 539, i.e. the bits that allow combined arms maneuvre warfare. in particular, far more than is required for the fetish-du-jour for company strength raids clinging manfully to the gunwales of rigid raiders with dagger 'twixt teeth and stern visage.

so, if larger grouping are being planned for, it rather suggests these new MRSS will continue to need docks - and presumably some slightly speedier LCU design to operate from them.

[Ron5]

stern visage

Got to admit the commandos have got this nailed. 100's of years of practice no doubt.

[Poiuytrewq]

....if larger grouping are being planned for, it rather suggests these new MRSS will continue to need docks - and presumably some slightly speedier LCU design to operate from them.

Six Ellida would provide space for 12 LCU's (or Caimen-90) so 1 more than total capacity now but equal to when RFA Largs Bay was around

Although the 6 Ellida (or similar) proposal would maintain LCU capacity it is worth considering the scale of reduction in aviation capacity outside of what the CVF's can provide. In addition to this the reduction in logistic capacity is also rather alarming.

Six Multi Role Support Ships would replace,

HMS Ocean
RFA Argus
2x Albion Class
4x Bay class
4x(6x) Point class
2x Wave class ?

IMO it's pretty clear the MRSS will need to be highly capable or this will turn out to be a massive cut to RN's Amphibious capability.

[cyrilranch]

The fact that an Albion and a modified Bay will be used to try out the Littoral response concept....

A fantastically capable pair. Add a Tide or Wave and a couple of T23's and Littoral Strike is very much a reality.

My main query would how 'modified' will the Bay actually become?

£50m should achieve everything required to add a full width 1000sqm hanger capable of housing 6 Merlins with maintenance clearances or more likely a highly versatile mix of Merlin/Wildcat and Apache.

It's looks to me as Mount's Bay will the only one to be upgraded as the other 2 Bays are fitted for permanent use basing in the gulf in rotation yearly.note that Mount's bay has not been given the same amount of comms and defensive aids as the others judging by the pictures of the ships during deployment.

[tomuk]

Six Multi Role Support Ships would replace,

HMS Ocean
RFA Argus
2x Albion Class
4x Bay class
4x(6x) Point class
2x Wave class ?

Ok Ocean has gone (but one of two qecs carriers avaiable)
Argus - given
Albions and Bays - ok
Points and waves - where does it say these are being replaced? (also don't forget the Tides).

As an aside if you weren't aware the US Navy plan to scrap their LSDs and replace them with revised cheaper version of their San antonio LPDs

[Lord Jim]

The revised version of the Sam Antonio is not to replace the exciting San Antonios but to supplement them replacing I believe two older classes and carrying out a role similar to our Bay. The San Antonios are the Assault ships with the revised design being the Logistics vessels.

Also I cannot see the MRSS replacing the Points as they have no need of replacement. They are good value for the RFA being only used when needed and their role is the bulk transportation of heavy vehicles, rather than supporting amphibious operations. But is they get the design of the MRSS right it will be a significant boost to our ability to land small formations of troops and support them, but the key is the right design.

We need to know more about what they are intended to do? What size of force are they intended to carry? Will they have a Well Deck and/or aviation facilities? What level of self-protection will they have? Will they be able to land troops and vehicles directly onto the beach?

To be of any use they must be able to carry, land and support a viable all arms force is required, be able to work together to combine their contingents seamlessly and be able to swiftly retrieve any landing force if required. Support should mean more than simple Logistics and/or medical care. They really should be able to provide fire support for any troops landed, be it by aviation assets or by weapon systems on the ships themselves. The USMC and USN have proven that GMLRS can be fired form a moving ship effectively against most target stationary or moving for example. Should they carry Sea Ceptor to provide both a self defence capability to the ship and air defence for the troops landed.

Should the ships be modular to allow them to be easily reconfigured in port for various roles from Logistics Carrier to Hospital Ship to Helicopter carrier, examples of some of the role they might undertake. These ships might be smaller than the Albions and Bays but they will probably not be cheap if the right design is built. However a medium sized modular support vessel maybe of interest to other navies so exports might arise.

All this is of course speculation as like the T-32 and T-83, all we have a really sound bites and/or a brief mention in a paper, nothing more.

[Poiuytrewq]

Ok Ocean has gone (but one of two qecs carriers avaiable)
Argus - given
Albions and Bays - ok
Points and waves - where does it say these are being replaced? (also don't forget the Tides).

My main point is that the 6 MRSS proposal is basically replacing the entire Amphib fleet with one class. I think it's fair and proper to compare this proposal with the fleet structure it is replacing when it was first conceived, not with what's left after successive governments have chipped away the edges to plug a few gaps in the budget.

The 2 QE's are replacing the 3 Invincibles, all the rest of the arguments such as PWLS becoming a LPH is political spin.

Ocean was simply cut without replacement to save money.

Argus is being replaced by a modified Bay. By doing so Argus can be replaced with a £50m budget by utilising an existing hull. I welcome this outcome but it's still a cut.

Largs Bay was cut without replacement to save money.

One of the Albions has already effectively been cut as both hulls alternate in and out of extended readiness.

The Points are approaching 20yrs old and reaching the end of their service lifespan for a hull of that type. Where are the replacements set out in the shipbuilding pipeline? They are not mentioned.

The Waves are also approaching 20yrs old with one active and one in extended readiness. This appears set to continue. Why are the Wave replacements not in the pipeline which sets out UK shipbuilding into the 2030's? Again not mentioned.

As an aside if you weren't aware the US Navy plan to scrap their LSDs and replace them with revised cheaper version of their San antonio LPDs

Absolutely true but the USN aren't proposing to decommission their LHD/LHA and LPD's as well.

I'm not suggesting the 6 MRSS plan is necessarily a bad idea, but I am highlighting the fact that they will be replacing what was once a fantastically capable Amphibious fleet. Therefore the replacements need to be highly capable too.

[jedibeeftrix]

I'm not suggesting the 6 MRSS plan is necessarily a bad idea, but I am highlighting the fact that they will be replacing what was once a fantastically capable Amphibious fleet. Therefore the replacements need to be highly capable too.

I take the point you were making further up-thread to me, but if we are looking at deploying a BG of 1,400 rather than a brigade of 4,200 then will six MRSS be sufficient to the task:

LJ - "To be of any use they must be able to carry, land and support a viable all arms force is required, be able to work together to combine their contingents seamlessly and be able to swiftly retrieve any landing force if required."

[ArmChairCivvy]

Mount's bay has not been given the same amount of comms and defensive aids as the others judging by the pictures of the ships during deployment.

Just as well, as she will now get a set 'one up'

Also I cannot see the MRSS replacing the Points as they have no need of replacement.

Quite. Just a pity that the two that were faster than our present four were the ones 'released'

Should they carry Sea Ceptor to provide both a self defence capability to the ship and air defence for the troops landed.

That kind of 'local' bubble is a good idea, rather than locking a frigate 'into place' just to do the same thing

These ships might be smaller than the Albions and Bays

... bigger than the Bays?

One of the Albions has already effectively been cut as both hulls alternate in and out of extended readiness.

When we will have one Albion on LRG duty (and the modified Bay, from 2023, on the other 'circuit' of the same duty), then - manning permitting - the other could become fully active (45 Cdo, NATO High North... and all that).

once a fantastically capable Amphibious fleet. Therefore the replacements need to be highly capable too.

Yes, but

deploying a BG of 1,400 rather than a brigade of 4,200 then will six MRSS be sufficient to the task

Wrong question? If there is one EoS and out of six, one might be in maintenance or whatever, then four should do that
... on which note a crew of 68 +350 embarked force ... makes for 1400 RM

[Poiuytrewq]

Also I cannot see the MRSS replacing the Points as they have no need of replacement.

Quite. Just a pity that the two that were faster than our present four were the ones 'released'

The MRSS are not due to be commissioned until the 2030's. When do you expect the Points to be decommissioned?

When we will have one Albion on LRG duty (and the modified Bay, from 2023, on the other 'circuit' of the same duty), then - manning permitting - the other could become fully active (45 Cdo, NATO High North... and all that).

Reactivating the second Albion would undoubtedly be a big win but the division of assets between the Eastern and Western LRG's is the part that isn't clear for me.

Is the LRG deploying in the Atlantic/High North going to include the modified Bay? If not, will it be Argus? If which case what happens between 2024 (when Argus is decommissioned) and 2030/2031 when the MRSS's start to arrive? Another Bay to be modified?

Also, what will be the availability of each of the LRG's, maybe only 4 or 5 months of the year? It's not clear.

I take the point you were making further up-thread to me, but if we are looking at deploying a BG of 1,400 rather than a brigade of 4,200 then will six MRSS be sufficient to the task:

Maybe, depends on what they turn out to be.

I have many questions about the MRSS but here are my top three,

1. What will the MRSS be required to do all of the time?
2. What will the MRSS be required to do some of the time?
3. What will the MRSS be required to do in a crisis or conflict scenario.

Once those questions are answered we can start to join up the dots.

[Repulse]

Must admit the Albion (LPD) + Modified Bay (LSD/Aviation Support Ship ) combination is a good one. Let’s see what 5-10 years of experience tells us before jumping to a new design.

Would be a shame to go with a compromised design when two more specialist classes combined gives a better answer.

[RichardIC]

Also I cannot see the MRSS replacing the Points as they have no need of replacement. They are good value for the RFA being only used when needed and their role is the bulk transportation of heavy vehicles, rather than supporting amphibious operations.

The Points certainly do need replacing. The contract with Foreland to deliver them expires in December 2024, then that's it under current arrangements. Then they're either cut or replaced. A third option could be an extension, for a set period, but that's only kicking the can down the road.

They're completely separate from the RFA. They maybe only used when they're needed but they're not only paid for when they're needed. They cost the MoD £36 million per year which is why they could be vulnerable. Valuable assets have gone to save much less than that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

They're completely separate from the RFA. They maybe only used when they're needed but they're not only paid for when they're needed.

The crew members are sponsored reserves. Roughly the same arrangement as the Army HETs that come with crews - just that the Points are on call whereas the HETs are full time.
- as pointed out above the Points contract up for renewal.. we won't have any new vessels by 2024
- even before that the HET contract will come up for rebidding

[Lord Jim]

They cost the MoD £36 million per year which is why they could be vulnerable. Valuable assets have gone to save much less than that.

At that price they are an absolute bargain for the capability they provide and there is no real alternative except paying a lot more when you actually need to move stuff on an individual basis and even then such contracts will probably limit how near the ships can get to the shooting so you might have to unload a considerable distance from where the stuff in actually going to.