The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has provided an update on the Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme, confirming its continued progress through the concept phase.
This initiative, announced in the 2021 defence white paper Defence in a Competitive Age, aims to modernise the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities.
Please note that the image above is illustrative and not representative of any choice for the ship’s design.
In a written response to a parliamentary question from David Reed, MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, outlined current activities within the programme. She stated:
“The Multi-Role Support Ship programme is progressing well through the Concept Phase. The Royal Navy (RN) and Defence Equipment and Support are conducting detailed work on key user requirements, conceptual designs, affordability, and exportability assessments, while working closely with leading UK shipbuilding entities and the National Shipbuilding Office (NSO) on the best commercial approach for UK to deliver for the RN and the Nation.”
The MOD revealed that an Outline Business Case is expected by mid-2025, which will pave the way for the programme to transition into the assessment phase in 2026.
Replacing a Legacy Fleet
The MRSS is designed to replace the Royal Navy’s existing amphibious fleet, including the two Albion-class landing platform docks, three Bay-class landing ships, and the multi-purpose support ship RFA Argus.
These vessels, some of which are scheduled for retirement as early as 2025, will be succeeded by up to six new multi-mission ships.
According to the MOD, the MRSS will maintain the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities, including global deployment and support for the Royal Marines. The first MRSS is expected to enter service by 2033, ensuring a seamless transition as the current fleet phases out by 2034.
The MRSS programme underpins the UK’s commitment to maintaining a globally deployable, amphibious-capable navy. As outlined in the 2021 defence white paper, these ships will be central to ensuring the Royal Navy remains equipped for future challenges, supporting both defence and humanitarian missions worldwide.
Funding and Timeline
The MRSS programme is funded from the Defence budget, enabling the Royal Navy and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) to undertake detailed preparatory work. Eagle stated:
“The programme aims to deliver the first of class by 2033. This timeline remains on track to meet operational requirements.”
While I can accept the Albion class where no longer right for the envisaged mission getting rid of them in 2025 two years before the maximum danger period to Taiwan in 2027 might end up looking very much like the 1981 defence cuts.
These vessels should have been able to go to Belfast after they finished the FSSS however that no longer seems possible given the timelines. So that will mean trying to squeeze them in at Rosyth so no chance of a t32 now and our escort fleet will be frozen at 19 for a generation.
Was scrapping the Albion’s really worth all that.
It’s all a mess. Perfect storm of cuts, recruitment, incompetence = a capability gap. We are where we are. MRSS program looks to be approved and being being well managed. I’ve a feeling T32 might turn out to be something you can build in Appledore.
Uhhh, no?
They have no idea what they want the design to be and they don’t even have funding for 6 ships so hardly well managed.
T32 has zero funding, it’s not happening
I think a new type is funded and will happen-for mcmv / opv replacement. It just won’t be a frigate.
I think they at least know what they don’t want – a small hybrid opv/lpd. That’s why we pulled out of the discussions with the Netherlands. I expect the concept work will dovetail with the SDR.
Appledore had issues building the basic hull of the Irish P60’s, with delays due to storm issues, and had at least one hull damaged from that. The idea that they are building something more complex than that seems “unlikely”.
Agree Jim. In the grand scheme of defence spending keeping the Albions was virtually nothing.
T32 was dead before this government took over. Tories knew it but it’s politically advantageous to let Labour be the ones to announce its demise.
It saves £9m annually to get rid of Bulwark and given the data provided so far about the MRSS project the only real differences in these vessels will be a hangar and a smaller crew.
The so called FCF is a product of disbanding 3 Commando Brigade because to modernise it is too expensive. The U.K.s amphibious capability was not about contested beach assaults but it is being used as a cover to suggest this is now too dangerous. The real reason is to save money.
We have conveniently forgotten to fight in the high north you need specially trained forces supported by dedicated shipping and aircraft all of which have been significantly reduced just at the wrong time.
The Bays may look similar to the Albions but they are not front line warships and are nowhere near as capable so the ‘seamless transition’ is just a downright lie.
I am sure the US amongst others have strongly voiced their displeasure at these ships being scrapped along with Waves.
Who do you think in the US would voice such displeasure, I’m curious 🧐
It goes often to the very top and let’s be honest our top military people speak to their US counterparts so this is then escalated to the White House.
So as an example when we we’re negotiating the adoption of Trident the Americans drove a hard bargain as below:
To pay for Trident, the British government announced deep cuts to other defence spending on 25 June 1981.[55]
Negotiations commenced on 8 February, with the British team again led by Wade-Gery. The Americans were disturbed at the proposed British defence cuts, and pressed for an undertaking that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible be retained in service, which they felt was necessary to avert trouble over the Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute. They accepted a counter-offer that Britain would retain the two landing platform dock ships, HMS Fearless and Intrepid, for which the Americans reduced the R&D charge.
Exactly this.
Now calculate 9m as a % of the 56b pound defence budget. It’s 0.016%.
Do you think it might be the one design for all 3-6 ships or two types to suit different capabilities requirements?
They want one design, but it’ll be a budget design that would’ve worked fine for 6 ships but will be sub par for 3
We don’t know if it’ll be budget or not, our current ships are all of budget designs and to put it lightly are terrible – even compared to ‘budget’ vessels of some allies and contemporaries they don’t stack up well with what they can do.
Helicopters have been the main effector for amphibious operations since the Falklands war yet only Argus, funnily enough the oldest ship, has permanent aviation capabilities. Whilst the Albions could carry a hefty landing craft complement they were still seriously lacking in capabilities for a 20,000 ton LPD; the PLANs newest class (marginally larger at an estimated 25,000 tons) can match the number of landing craft, carry more vehicles and house 5 helicopters on top of that and the USNs San Antonios can operate three CV-22 and large LCACs – those ships were big white elephants that did nothing more than look the part, built for yesterdays war on the cheap. The Bays are to small, they can only carry a single landing vessel yet some how outweigh most LPD classes around the world, the Spanish Galicias for example weigh 3,000 tons less but can carry 4 LCMs, up to 6 helicopters and 33 MBTs – even the larger Albions could only theoretically carry up to 36 MBTs. The self-defenses on them are the minimal level for any naval ship, time and time again amphibious ships have been put on show as highly vulnerable (lessons from the Falklands and the recent Black Sea fleets battering have reinforced this, with the Ropucha class taking the heaviest casualties) and the newly emerging litoral threats from USVs and the emphasis on coastal AShMs in many places the idea of keeping these ships aways from contested landings is a pipe dream, they are going to need a higher level of self-defense capabilities if they are to ever have a chance at getting close to any near peers coastline.
It’s a common MoD trope to excuse cutting numbers by claiming the new tanks, aircraft, destroyers ect are more capable than the previous generation so we won’t need as many however, cutting MRSS at three vessels might actually be surprisingly sensible. Having three 20,000 ton+ LPDs built to full warship standards with aviation facilities for 3+ medium helicopters, a large well deck and modular vehicle bay for various assault craft and up and coming USVs to be operated from and a medium level of self defences with a Type-997 radar (maybe a 57mm gun with a pair of Mk-5 Bofors or potentially a small numbers of CAMM cells with a CIWS) would create a more rounded and capable amphibious force than the current hodgepodge which, ironically, could deliver multiple times more aircraft, an equal number of landing craft and carry more vehicles despite cutting the total number of hulls in half.
The current fleet is a mess and fluffed out to create the illusion of numbers whilst delivering less total capability than some navies who only have two or three amphibious ships, it’s time to scrap the lot and start again with modern threats in mind. Cut the numbers to three but make them all properly with no corners cut, there is no point making another 6 subpar vessels and shackling the RN amphibious striking force for another 25 years just to keep the mUh NuMbErS crowd of people happy.
Most people at the time were hoping for two small LHDs instead of the Albion LPDs but the risk for the Navy was they would lose at least one of the Invincible class if an LHD was procured.
The Albions lost a hangar deck to save money and the compromise was going to be two (eventually one) LPH.
The loss of Ocean therefore as many commentators said compromised our amphibious flotilla.
Comparing the Albion class with San Antonio’s is not helpful because they are 100ft longer so I would expect them to accommodate more equipment and helicopters because they have significantly more internal volume.
The Bays are based on the Enforcer design that includes the Galicia and Rotterdam but the smaller well deck is because they are not front line LPDs but second line vessels. The loss of the hangar was of course financially driven but makes a bit of sense if you have two LPH.
As for the armament on the Albions it is interesting that the proceeding Fearless class ships had a point defence missile system and some small calibre weapons when built so the reliance on just CIWS is part of the British disease in under arming all our ships. This could of course be easily rectified given the funds.
As for scrapping vessels then you have your wish but the chances are we will get three at best lightly armed, merchant built RFA crewed vessels that will not do the job you describe.
If the first MRSS won’t be delivered until 2033, it means that they will be replacing the Bays and Argos. The LSD Albions won’t be replaced, thus there is no capability gap. Why is it taking so long to settle on the basic design of ships first mentioned 4 years ago? Does anyone in the RN know what they’re doing?
With missile needs i don’t think amphibious is a priority.
The problem is that at this stage there is a lot of crystal ball gazing going on. Two big questions are, “What will be the threat and mission profile?”, and, “What future will technology be capable of doing?”
The trouble for many decision makers, especially ones who are told they need to eliminate risk, the answers to those key questions are rather woolly, too woolly for many. So you end up with lots and lots of ‘analysis’ being done going into ever more detail which basically leads to information overload or as we used to call it when I was still in the system ‘analysis paralysis’. It is the bane of effective decision making.
Cheers CR
The usual spin.
The LPDs were cut, they’re not being “replaced.”
An LPD with its c33, LCUs and LCVPs does not have to be used to storm a contested beach. It can land where it chooses. 🙄
Just excuses for cuts and dismantling 3 Cdo Bde from 2015 onwards.
Even if with Sweden and Finland now in NATO reduced their high north role, the LPDs could have still had use elsewhere.
Exactly. Why scrap something in working order if you plan to replace it in 8/10 years time?
What baffles me is that the RN knew what they didn’t want- LPDs- but seem to have little clear idea about what they do want.
We haven’t heard anything beyond “ large, non complex warships”. But that seems at odds with the changing role of the RMs which would be better served by more, smaller platforms, perhaps able to undertake other tasks.
If you asked the RM they would retain the LPDs but the navy can’t afford to crew them it is that simple. If it were not the case you would scrap the much less capable and merchant ship built Bays and retain the LPDs.
It’s all about the lack of funds.
I would think with the timescales a flat top maybe a suitable answer. With drones, helicopters, With a well deck for drone boats, landing craft. 8000-20,000t should do the job.
Even having 3 small flattops and 3 other ships. They need to be able to defend themselves so need guns, missiles, counter measures and medium range sensors, datalinks. These don’t have to be active all the time to reduce crews.
We are looking that ships can’t rely on an escorts and submarine being available all the time.
These are used to secure an area and other ships bring in heavier gear.
Or it goes down the cheap commercial ship with adaptations and not much protection.
To get around the politicians aversion to buying ‘more’ flat tops we could just come up with a new type of ship. Anyone for for a thru-deck LPD or LSD. It worked with the thru-deck cruiser.
I would propose a 3-4 MK2 Bays and a couple of Ocean sized LHDs.
Currently plan is only for 3-6 ships of one class
It certainly doesn’t look good for proper replacement vessels and there is very little chance we will see 6 given the current economic situation.
Yo Wafu’s😁 ,Happy birthday FAA..Fly Navy👍👍 🙃🕳️
Wonder what the next major announcement will be ?
MOD intrested in a new dust pan and brush 👍 tenders put out for bin bags as well 😀