Multi-Role Support Ships (MRSS)

[new guy]

Never understood separated UAV / heli hangers when they are adjacent.
why not integrate?

As for the hanger, what size would you like?
4 merlins worth? seems good to me. If black hawk gets selected for NSM and has folding rotors, that is 8...

[Poiuytrewq]

The Enforcer 15626ED proposal seems tick a lot of boxes.

Interesting but a bit underwhelming.

What is the 15626ED gaining when compared to what is currently in the water? The Ellida was 200m as was the LSS concept. Why 156m? Budget blown already or is this optimised for the Dutch?

The design is interesting,

- The flight deck configuration is very similar to Albion but the twin Chinook capability is removed.

- The Tank deck is almost identically sized to Albion but much smaller than the Bays.

- The 35t crane is similar to the Bays

- Speed, range and endurance are comparable to Bays/Albions but need to be extended to 22knts/12000nm/45days IMO.

- 2 helo hanger is similar to a Bay with RUBB

- UAV hanger/flight deck looks too small for Heavy Lift UAVs

- The 4x15m davits plus 2x LCU capacity is perfect

- Role 2 medical is a good addition

Overall, it would be good to see the 180m and 200m UK versions especially the LHD variant.

[shark bait]

As for the hanger, what size would you like?
4 merlins worth? seems good to me. If black hawk gets selected for NSM and has folding rotors, that is 8...

Karel Doorman has "Flight deck with 2 spots for a Chinook helicopter", and "Hangar space for 2 x Chinook size helicopters in the fully spread condition". That's a pretty great ability to have, one that would be great to replicate on MRSS.

[new guy]

As for the hanger, what size would you like?
4 merlins worth? seems good to me. If black hawk gets selected for NSM and has folding rotors, that is 8...

Karel Doorman has "Flight deck with 2 spots for a Chinook helicopter", and "Hangar space for 2 x Chinook size helicopters in the fully spread condition". That's a pretty great ability to have, one that would be great to replicate on MRSS.

is that 4 merlin?

[shark bait]

says "space for 6 x Chinook size with blades folded" so I would guess that's space for 6 Merlin (maybe even 8?)

[Fr0sty125]

Never understood separated UAV / heli hangers when they are adjacent.
why not integrate?

That’s what I first thought but they are not adjacent the UAV hangar and flight deck are on the roof of heli hangers.

[new guy]

says "space for 6 x Chinook size with blades folded" so I would guess that's space for 6 Merlin (maybe even 8?)

Up to 6 × NH90 or AS-532 Cougar with blades folded or 2 × CH-47 Chinook with blades spread.

[new guy]

Never understood separated UAV / heli hangers when they are adjacent.
why not integrate?

That’s what I first thought but they are not adjacent the UAV hangar and flight deck are on the roof of heli hangers.

Ah yes, when described I thought they were on the same deck. In that case I refer to situations like T26.

[Ian Hall]

[sol]

From the article

That is different from the British, Pastor explained: "They think that ship should also be deployed independently and that is another concept. It also requires more investment in self-defense resources than we do. With us, that self-defense ring is formed by escort ships, the British do not. That is not to say that the ship cannot protect itself, but not from the quantity we see it in the highest spectrum of violence.”

That also had consequences for the cooperation "The budget is different and the concept is different. That is why we are diverging with the British and have come to the conclusion that we cannot build identical ships," Pastor said. The British Navy is much coordinated so that the ships can receive each other's landing boats and helicopters. The same subsystems are also purchased as much as possible.

So British ships, even if developed in partnerships, could be significantly different, so Dutch ones could have flight deck while British ones might not.

[new guy]

Another article posted 9 days late... !!!

[Repulse]

So British ships, even if developed in partnerships, could be significantly different, so Dutch ones could have flight deck while British ones might not.

Apologies, spotted the same and posted on the amphibious post. However, I didn’t see the same conclusion, only that the RN needs them to operate independently whereas the Dutch navy sees them operating alongside frigates which is interesting given they only have 6.

[new guy]

The image shown in the House of Representatives shows more besides the helicopters. There is a cannon at the front of the ship. On the island (the superstructure) there are masts with, among other things, satellite communications and an NS100 radar can be recognized on the rear mast. There is also a RAM system that can eliminate targets at short range using missiles.

This armament is therefore mainly intended as a last resort. This means that the ships are better armed than the patrol ships, but there is not much difference. The ATSs are intended for operations in the highest spectrum of violence, such as an amphibious landing. But they must be protected by frigates or similar ships.

That is different from the British, Pastor explained: "They think that ship should also be deployed independently and that is another concept. It also requires more investment in self-defense resources than we do. With us, that self-defense ring is formed by escort ships, the British do not. That is not to say that the ship cannot protect itself, but not from the quantity we see it in the highest spectrum of violence.”

I find this comment very weird.

1) 2/3rds of the ships the dutch are replacing are OPV's. OPV's, that operate by themselves, without frigates. Whereas the RN operate the ships set to be replaced in LRG's with escorts, which leads to my next point...

2) New Amphibious stratagy for the RN?? No more LRG groups and instead are we looking at more ships, which do singleton deployments? Or are we looking at a portion of realism from the admiralty that it will be hard to scrap up escorts?

3) If the dutch navy say that 30mm's, RAM and 40mm's on their concept are much less then what the RN is persuing, then are we looking at something like the Damen crossover? MRSS-T32 blend?

[new guy]

Just a reminder for any body who missed it which I believe might be a few

The UK and the Netherlands have dropped the idea of developing a future joint amphibious ship design but instead will look to engineer maximum interoperability and equipment commonality in their planned next-generation platforms.

This also had consequences for the cooperation. "The budget is different and the concept is different. That is why we disagreed with the British and came to the conclusion that we cannot build identical ships," Pastoor said. There is a lot of coordination with the British Navy so that the ships can receive each other's landing craft and helicopters. The same subsystems are also purchased as much as possible.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ship-class
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Meer-de ... 90424.html

[SD67]

Maybe something got lost in translation, this makes little sense. Since when are we planning to do single ship amphib deployments - that’s the opposite of the LRG concept.

Sounds like the RN program has been pushed to the right, cue 5 years of concepts and studies…

[Markam]

Any Dutch LHD concept would be fairly alien to UK requirements, I would think.

The LPD side of the programme makes more sense as a bi-national programme, especially with the Netherlands where we are conducting similar littoral duties with our marines.

So I would say replacing the 3 Bays and Argus with the MRSS makes the most sense, with Albion and Bulwark left as an open question.
The 4x ships are best replaced sooner rather than later as they are getting fairly old (especially Argus).

(My "fantasy" fleet has us replace the Bulwark/Albion with a F-35B capable LHD/Light carrier that lets us keep the QEs based semi-permanently somewhere without having to spend as much on upkeep. Could even keep one east of Suez and partially crewed and maintained by Allies!)

[new guy]

(My "fantasy" fleet has us replace the Bulwark/Albion with a F-35B capable LHD/Light carrier that lets us keep the QEs based semi-permanently somewhere without having to spend as much on upkeep. Could even keep one east of Suez and partially crewed and maintained by Allies!)

Yes, get 2 hulls we can't afford, which would threaten the carrier's existence.

[tomuk]

Any Dutch LHD concept would be fairly alien to UK requirements, I would think.

The LPD side of the programme makes more sense as a bi-national programme, especially with the Netherlands where we are conducting similar littoral duties with our marines.

So I would say replacing the 3 Bays and Argus with the MRSS makes the most sense, with Albion and Bulwark left as an open question.
The 4x ships are best replaced sooner rather than later as they are getting fairly old (especially Argus).

(My "fantasy" fleet has us replace the Bulwark/Albion with a F-35B capable LHD/Light carrier that lets us keep the QEs based semi-permanently somewhere without having to spend as much on upkeep. Could even keep one east of Suez and partially crewed and maintained by Allies!)

The Bays aren't old unlike Argus and don't cost a fortune to run unlike the LPDs. The new build should replace Argus and the LPDs first.

[SW1]

I think an interesting example of a company type operation by the Royal Marines and type of ship required for it , is the 2002 45 commando company deployment for operation anaconda. Where HMS ocean was used to deploy the company by chinook from the Indian Ocean into bagram and was support by Hercules from BIOT and c17 from the uk.

A ship that cost £154m to build in the 90s and required 250 crew. I really don’t see how these proposed new way off operating for the marines works without something along the lines of ocean.

[Repulse]

I think an interesting example of a company type operation by the Royal Marines and type of ship required for it , is the 2002 45 commando company deployment for operation anaconda.

Would probably require a CVF, but doable.

I would add the operations Paraquet and Highbrow and ones that should be modelled for any future force also.

[Markam]

Latest article on Navylookout discusses the armament of the two ships deployed to the Indo-Pacific;

Which raises the question, to what extent do we want to arm their future replacements?
The US Navy is phasing out Phalanx, which is what the LPDs have now.

The answer seems to depend on how available escorts are to the MRSS.

If they are expected to defend themselves, do we need to consider Sea Ceptor, perhaps even with MK41 so they can also fire different types of missiles? Can it be made so they re-arm VLS by themselves at sea?

Bofors 40mm seem like the most well-rounded point defence otherwise.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Latest article on Navylookout discusses the armament of the two ships deployed to the Indo-Pacific;

Which raises the question, to what extent do we want to arm their future replacements?
The US Navy is phasing out Phalanx, which is what the LPDs have now.

The answer seems to depend on how available escorts are to the MRSS.

If they are expected to defend themselves, do we need to consider Sea Ceptor, perhaps even with MK41 so they can also fire different types of missiles? Can it be made so they re-arm VLS by themselves at sea?

Bofors 40mm seem like the most well-rounded point defence otherwise.

Defend themselves against what is essential. I personally think, the enemy level for LRG vessels has a significant diversity, and therefore it shall be armed with only simplest ones, like 20mm CIWS or 40mm 3P guns, and nothing more. If more threat is expected, call for T31 (if low level), T26 and T45 (if so-so level) or the whole CSG (high level).

Amphibious operation shall not be done at risk, I think. If there be a risk, UK shall eliminate it before doing any amphibious operations = send the whole CSG. Or, most of the amphibious operations shall be done in very low risk, such as done in Siea Leone.

[new guy]

Latest article on Navylookout discusses the armament of the two ships deployed to the Indo-Pacific;

Which raises the question, to what extent do we want to arm their future replacements?
The US Navy is phasing out Phalanx, which is what the LPDs have now.

The answer seems to depend on how available escorts are to the MRSS.

If they are expected to defend themselves, do we need to consider Sea Ceptor, perhaps even with MK41 so they can also fire different types of missiles? Can it be made so they re-arm VLS by themselves at sea?

Bofors 40mm seem like the most well-rounded point defence otherwise.

Listening to the dutch, the RN seems to be going for VLS on amphib levels of protection

Quote below, but summarised in my interpretation here:

. Dutch to equip their amphibs to the level currently seen on Our Amphibs/ a level higher
. They believe their Amphibs will operate with escorts
. The RN don't appear to want to suck up escort resources for the LRG's, (Or maybe new CONOPS)
. So the RN wants a Tier higher than what the dutch are getting

The image shown in the House of Representatives shows more besides the helicopters. There is a cannon at the front of the ship. On the island (the superstructure) there are masts with, among other things, satellite communications and an NS100 radar can be recognized on the rear mast. There is also a RAM system that can disable targets at short range using missiles.

This armament is therefore mainly intended as a last resort. This means that the ships are better armed than the patrol ships, but there is not much difference. The ATSs are intended for operations in the highest spectrum of violence, such as an amphibious landing. But they must be protected by frigates or similar ships.

This is different from the British, Pastoor explained: "They believe that ships should also be deployed independently and that is a different concept. That also requires more investment in self-defense equipment than we have. For us, that self-defense ring is formed by escort ships "The British do not do that. That does not mean that the ship cannot protect itself, but not against the amount as we see in the highest spectrum of violence."

https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Meer-de ... 90424.html

[tomuk]

Latest article on Navylookout discusses the armament of the two ships deployed to the Indo-Pacific;

Which raises the question, to what extent do we want to arm their future replacements?
The US Navy is phasing out Phalanx, which is what the LPDs have now.

The answer seems to depend on how available escorts are to the MRSS.

If they are expected to defend themselves, do we need to consider Sea Ceptor, perhaps even with MK41 so they can also fire different types of missiles? Can it be made so they re-arm VLS by themselves at sea?

Bofors 40mm seem like the most well-rounded point defence otherwise.

Listening to the dutch, the RN seems to be going for VLS on amphib levels of protection

Quote below, but summarised in my interpretation here:

. Dutch to equip their amphibs to the level currently seen on Our Amphibs/ a level higher
. They believe their Amphibs will operate with escorts
. The RN don't appear to want to suck up escort resources for the LRG's, (Or maybe new CONOPS)
. So the RN wants a Tier higher than what the dutch are getting

The image shown in the House of Representatives shows more besides the helicopters. There is a cannon at the front of the ship. On the island (the superstructure) there are masts with, among other things, satellite communications and an NS100 radar can be recognized on the rear mast. There is also a RAM system that can disable targets at short range using missiles.

This armament is therefore mainly intended as a last resort. This means that the ships are better armed than the patrol ships, but there is not much difference. The ATSs are intended for operations in the highest spectrum of violence, such as an amphibious landing. But they must be protected by frigates or similar ships.

This is different from the British, Pastoor explained: "They believe that ships should also be deployed independently and that is a different concept. That also requires more investment in self-defense equipment than we have. For us, that self-defense ring is formed by escort ships "The British do not do that. That does not mean that the ship cannot protect itself, but not against the amount as we see in the highest spectrum of violence."

https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Meer-de ... 90424.html

But what would we fit to a British version other than CAMM in VLS instead of SEARAM? How does that stop us and the Dutch from collaborating?

[new guy]

But what would we fit to a British version other than CAMM in VLS instead of SEARAM? How does that stop us and the Dutch from collaborating?

1) CAMM in addition to RAM / LMM, and whatever constitutes escort levels of armament.
2) He then goes on to say: This also had consequences for the cooperation. "The budget is different and the concept is different. That is why we disagreed with the British and came to the conclusion that we cannot build identical ships,"

We only ever sign a letter of intent to explore the options together and I believe it has been overblown so much.