Steller Systems has unveiled the Fearless Class to compete to for Britain’s upcoming Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) project.

This new ship is positioned, say the firm, to play a crucial role in Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) operations, raiding, and landing missions, offering significant flexibility and advanced technology.

According to the company, the Fearless Class MRSS is built to excel in littoral zones, providing support for raiding activities and landing operations over long distances. As a mothership for uncrewed vehicles, it offers a versatile platform for various mission profiles. The ship’s design prioritises adaptability and durability,

Fearless features 800 Lane Metres of storage space, accessible through multiple hatches and a stern ramp. This ramp can support vessels up to 20 meters in length and 30 tonnes in weight, allowing the embarkation of Commando Insertion Craft, Uncrewed Surface and Submerged Vessels, Extra Large Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, and Future all-terrain vehicles. This capability ensures that Fearless can support a wide range of operations, from amphibious assaults to logistical support.

The firm says survivability is a key aspect of the Fearless design. The ship includes a sophisticated combat system that provides a layered air defence umbrella, ensuring the vessel and its payloads remain protected during operations.

Steller Systems says it has employed its Hull Tune optimisation suite to achieve a balance between hydrodynamic efficiency and stability. The Fearless Class features a propulsion system with tractor-podded propulsion and contrarotating electrically driven shafts. This allows the vessel to reach speeds of 30 knots while consuming less power than a Type 23 frigate. The propulsion system enables rapid repositioning, fuel savings, reduced acoustic signatures, and lower acquisition costs.

Fearless boasts a modular design with upper deck spaces for containers, NavyPODS, or additional weapon systems. The hangar can house two Merlin-sized helicopters or a mix of helicopters and Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

The integration between the flight deck and the garage enhances mission adaptability, supporting operations such as Mine Countermeasures (MCM), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR), Humanitarian Aid, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC), and intra-theatre lift.

While the Fearless has fewer Lane Metres compared to traditional Landing Platform Docks (LPDs), it offers superior launch and recovery capabilities in higher sea states and supports distributed operations. This reduces the reliance on larger, more vulnerable ships.

Steller Systems, founded in 2011, is an independent consultancy specialising in naval architecture and marine engineering. The company provides services across all stages of the equipment lifecycle, from initial concept design to in-service technical support and modifications. Steller Systems is also a Corporate Partner of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA).

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

80 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Geo
Geo (@guest_820518)
16 days ago

Nice…..has potential……hopefully the kind of thing that comes to fruition and does not redesign and redesign itself down the drain

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_820530)
16 days ago
Reply to  Geo

Its only an early proposal , but already obvious it would need alot of scaling back.

Dern
Dern (@guest_820580)
16 days ago
Reply to  Geo

What Hugo said, plus, it’s not what the Navy seems to be looking for (They want something the RFA can use) so I see it as very unlikely to be the choice they go too.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_820685)
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

I put this idea to the MOD years ago that future destroyers needed to be considerably more versatile. A small Nation such as the UK needs to build clever warships that do a variety of jobs and are not necessarily designed as those currently in service. Large Navies such as the United States can field more conventional designs for frigates and destroyers. simply based on the sheer numbers. Smaller Navies need to be more innovative in how they design vessels and adopt the principles of the famous Swiss Army knife for future designs.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_820806)
16 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

Agreed Maurice, although I would say that the UK can afford some specialist vessels but never the mass that the USN can achieve. Vessels like this could add mass. Lets say we bought 6, we could kit them out differently. Say 2 could be full spec for operations in the high north, including coastal ASW, with the rest being given lower spec weapons fits. As tension rise they could be rapidly up specc’ed… Ok I know “fit for but not with” is anathema to many on here, but the RAF have shown how spiral develop can work very well on… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_820814)
16 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Downside is that with this set up you get fewer auxilliaries because once you start fitting them out to fight the cost skyrockets. Bays and Tides cost about 120m£ each to build. Kitted out as fighting combatants you’re going to easily be looking at 4x the price. So you might add a little bit of mass in the escort category, but you definetly won’t be adding auxilliary mass.

It’s the OPV debate all over again at scale.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_821857)
12 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Good point Dern, but it was cost that I suggested building different variants on the same hull. I’ve been thinking about this ship for the last couple of days and it struck me that this could have started out as a T83 concept. At 15,500tons (see Navy Lookout) it is a small auxiliary but a big destroyer which would be a reasonable concept given the type 80 series designation. The stern ramp could easily be used for autonomous vehicles (surface and sub). Where the containers are currently shown between the funnels you could place a significant VLS farm. As such… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_820941)
15 days ago
Reply to  Dern

It absolutely isn’t what the Royal Naval Service is looking for and anyone who reads the detail from last weeks announcement should realise that. This is “design concept” nothing more and nothing else and in no way does it match up with 1 SL wants. ”MRSS will be highly flexible warships, able to deploy on a wider variety of operations, and designed to carry vehicles, aircraft, insertion craft and a broad range of uncrewed missions. They will also be able to act as primary receiving ships, providing urgent medical care to our forces wherever they are deployed.” To do all… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_820948)
15 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

This absolutely isn’t what the RN *was* looking for, but a short time in the Red Sea seems to have focused minds. They are now talking about medium-high threat environments and high threat when supported. It doesn’t have to be manned by RFA, and crewing is still up in the air. It’s in Concept and we won’t get the details until it comes out. I think it’ll be a lot more fighty than we had been led to believe. I that at £400m and the rest, this design is probably too rich, but some of the ideas could well see… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_821147)
14 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I think the 1st Sea Lord saying what the RN wants for MRSS pretty well rules this one out. To be perfectly honest it actually is probably a very good candidate for what the Dutch want which is why our joint project has hit the buffers.
They want to replace their Amphibs and large OPV with a single ship type.
I’d be surprised if it isn’t a big Bay sized ship with a dock, shed loads of space, a hanger and a through flight deck. Nothing fancy but lean manned.

Blue Fuzz
Blue Fuzz (@guest_820521)
16 days ago

I really like this. Eight to meet both the MRSS and T32 requirements 🤔

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_820525)
16 days ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

That would be 11 wouldn’t it? 5 x 32, 6 x MRSS

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_820529)
16 days ago

Only if they actually built the full number originally specified, which is unlikely.
But we already know MRSS is specified as 3 ships, plus another 3 later

Last edited 16 days ago by Hugo
Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_820531)
16 days ago
Reply to  Hugo

Well don’t go giving them ideas!

Blue Fuzz
Blue Fuzz (@guest_820533)
16 days ago

I suspect Fearless would cost more than other T32 options (e.g. T31 Batch 2) or a less warlike MRSS (e.g. Ellida). So fewer hulls for the same procurement budget – but perhaps costing less to crew and maintain than the larger number of vessels. Also, Fearless wouldn’t require an escort – so it could be argued that it’s more efficient solution to the RN’s needs.

Jim
Jim (@guest_820557)
16 days ago

Budget for 3 is all that has been confirmed.

Jim
Jim (@guest_820556)
16 days ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

I really hate it, it looks like a T32 frigate parading as amphibious ship.

If our entire amphibious fleet is to be replaced by three large frigates with a stern ramp then we really f**ked.

The ability to operate just two Merlin’s is a joke. What can you get to shore like that and why does this thing have two gun turrets.

Craig
Craig (@guest_820618)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

They’re 40mm turrets, the same pairing setup T31 has for both air defence and defence against swarm attacks. For littoral operations this (along with Phalanx) makes sense, especially with escort numbers so low. An LRG would likely consist of a pair of these, so that’s 4 Merlin’s.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_820633)
16 days ago
Reply to  Craig

No, on the concept one is a 5″ for NGFS and the one above the hangar is 76mm (more likely 57).
No 40s at all, this has more of a T26 style mix.

Jim
Jim (@guest_820639)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

That’s what I thought, just needs a pair of photon torpedo launchers to complete the nonsense.

Harold
Harold (@guest_820655)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I suspect the idea is that it’s “self-escorting”, given the pathetically low numbers of frigates we’ve got nowadays. Just goes to show how saving money in one area forces sub-optimal compromises in another, doesn’t it?

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_820659)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I don’t see what’s wrong with a “strike frigate” or even an amphibious cruiser. One of the core needs for T32 is to be an escort for LRGs and the like because we did not previously have large groups of auxiliaries operating together. What Steller have done here is to roll together the escort and the ship it is protecting so that one vessel can go anywhere without problems with self defence. In that case the concept actually represents two ships; the ELLIDA style amphibious platform and its frigate like escort, hence the absurd mk41 loadout. I don’t have a… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_820701)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

A very reasoned take I think. Sometimes conceptual lateral thinking makes a lot of sense even if it’s too different an idea for some to properly and sensibly evaluate. Testing the established norms is always worth it, even if that testing has to be carefully and thoroughly evaluated without prejudice. The littoral environment certainly isn’t what it once was so traditional concepts may simply be a waste of money even if they work out cheaper per ship.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_820785)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Completely agree with all that good summary.

Harold
Harold (@guest_820653)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

That was my impression: 1 x 5″ Mk.45, 1 x 76mm Strales, 2 x 30mm DS30, 2 x 20mm Phalanx, plus an unknown number of SeaCeptors and space amidships for containerised SSMs or other containerized system. I find the 76mm AND the SeaCeptors to be a bit OTT, and the 5″ should really be on the Type 31/32 frigates, but since they aren’t, this is probably the next best thing. One thing I don’t get is why they’ve got the Phalanx guns on the sides with limited 90 deg arcs P & S. Surely since SeaCeptor doesn’t need FC trackers,… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_820699)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Are ships that can’t defend themselves of any use at all? I am not convinced the littoral delivery of marines is going to be even practical at all than in the mildest of conflicts which means any specialist ship is going to be expensive. So just maybe a ship like this that can actually have flexibility and wider application might just be a better bet even if in smaller numbers potentially. Danger is I guess it ends up being not quite good enough at anything while being expensive but that’s what I hope the experts are paid to ascertain. It’s… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_820765)
16 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I did have the same doubts about these.

Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_820767)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

It looks like a larger version of a Danish Absolom/Damon Crossover design to me. An idea that the Danes have moved away from by converting their Absoloms to ASW frigates.

Lee John fursman
Lee John fursman (@guest_820623)
16 days ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

I love the name and I want this ship tomorrow.. Wishful thinking…. St Albans is back though…

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_820523)
16 days ago

I don’t love that it doesn’t have a well deck. But the MRSS concept itself seems very solid and well conceived

Paddles
Paddles (@guest_820546)
16 days ago

Well decks aren’t good in any real sea states, and with how Ukraine has demonstrated, ships will need to be further off shore than before meaning higher sea states.

dc647
dc647 (@guest_820543)
16 days ago

Is it a coincidence that there’s a general election coming up in the near future, that all these stories of future building projects I wonder how many will survive after the general election….

DP
DP (@guest_820553)
16 days ago
Reply to  dc647

Yes, if Labour get in, and they scale back on some of these schemes then the Conservatives will have set them up to be the bad boys. If, by some fluke, the current regime return to office then I dare say they’ll do something similar as they realize some of their ‘ambitious’ (essential IMHO) ideas are unaffordable by the current bean counter led management but will choose their moment to do the cutting when the next government scandal erupts!

Jim
Jim (@guest_820558)
16 days ago
Reply to  DP

Grant Shapps is just making stuff up as he goes knowing full well it will never happen.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_820787)
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Sounds about right.

DP
DP (@guest_820552)
16 days ago

The helideck seems pretty small compared to the various designs it would be replacing?

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_820554)
16 days ago
Reply to  DP

Still 2 helicopters in their own specialised hangarsz so better than a Bay.

Dern
Dern (@guest_820582)
16 days ago
Reply to  DP

Yes, but of all the RN/RFA Amphibious ships, only Argus has a permanent Hangar.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_820794)
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Indeed and that’s a design flaw for what they get used for and the makeup of the modern RN…which is why they keep sticking temporary hangers on them…the no hanger paradigm is essentially depend on having some form of commando carrier type vessel to act as a home for your medium and heavy lift rotors..

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_820883)
15 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Fair point, although a good reason to make that a requirement of the MRSS (which I think it is?) this time around.
Also, I note that it can fit 2 x Merlin, which is great. But with the complexities of geometry, I’d rather they confirm that a Chinook can fit.

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_820555)
16 days ago

Quite pleasing on the eye but no well-deck and one helicopter spot / hangar for only 2 Merlin’s are undeniable issues. I do think whatever form MRSS takes a much better defensive armament of 40/57mm’s and Sea Ceptor are important to reduce reliance on the escort fleet.

Isshiki
Isshiki (@guest_820570)
16 days ago

This amphibious support ship seemed to lack real air defence such as CIWS where the ship really need Phalanx CIWS or Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS. This ship will need not less than 3 or 4 CIWS otherwise this expensive ship would not last long in a saturated missile attack from enemies where missiles are fired in salvos to destroy CIWS or any other air defence capability

Harold Smith
Harold Smith (@guest_824914)
4 hours ago
Reply to  Isshiki

It’s got two Phalanx (port and starboard amidships), an anti-missile-capable 76mm Strales on the hangar roof and Sea Ceptor missiles. That’s quite a lot of air defence: equivalent to a high-end frigate.

Geoffff
Geoffff (@guest_820593)
16 days ago

Love to see inside that huge penthouse bridge.

Brom
Brom (@guest_820611)
16 days ago

Is it just me but I think the ships need to be through deck to future proof them

Jacob Meeson-White
Jacob Meeson-White (@guest_820616)
16 days ago

We should be getting something along the line of the Cambera class assault ships so that we can run drone, helicopters and STOVL aircraft off them. Preferably we make the QE class catobar then transfer the F35Bs to these new flat top ships (in my proposal).

Jacob Meeson-White
Jacob Meeson-White (@guest_820617)
16 days ago

Heck do it as a trade deal we make several frigates for them and they build us a couple of Canberra classes. Don’t muck around setting up a new supply chain just utilising the existing one. I am aware the hulls were made in Spain.

PeterS
PeterS (@guest_820630)
16 days ago

Navy lookout states this design is 170m long and displaces 15000 tons full load. With the proposed armament, it’s going to be very expensive and in some ways just a swollen frigate, with very limited aviation facilities.
We certainly need a vessel that is genuinely multi role, able to conduct other missions when not supporting troop landing. But if we are moving away from battalion sized beach landings because of perceived risk, helicopter insertion from longer range will require much larger airlift capacity.

nicholas
nicholas (@guest_820649)
16 days ago

The school boy naval spotter in me really likes the look of that.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_820664)
16 days ago
Reply to  nicholas

Steller designs do have a very nice aesthetic with the bridge and bow.
Their T31 entry was similar and this is just a scaled up version.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_820712)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Yes, a muscled up verdion of their Spartan frigate with a dash of the Danish “IH Absalon” added on top!

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_820795)
16 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The Spartan was itself along Absalon lines, although more of a Damen Crossover. It had a twin hangar and a massive mission deck with a small rear ramp on the Centreline.
Having had a look at the Spartan brochure, this is really just the same thing but with a scaled up rear end.
Navy Lookout has a similarly useful comments section with the LHD/LPD debate raging again.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_820825)
16 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Evening SB, I’ve been reading Navy Lookout too. Lots of good comments both there and here. Stella have their “look”, as do BMT. I’m surprised at the level of armaments here but I guess that’s based on its likely ops environments. Good to see a bit of a different take which might then spur BAE and BMT on a bit to evolve their designs. At the end of the days we all want a decent quantity of capable ships in the RN.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_820658)
16 days ago

Keep it simple. Bay Class…..if its working don’t fix it. MRSS should be an armed LPD / LSD well deck design of at least 16-2Ok tons with flight deck spots for 2 Chinooks. Make use of new technology where you can to reduce crewing requirement.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_820669)
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I would agree, a modern take on the Bay, with crewing reduced as much as possible, large modular hanger space for Helos UAV’s and containers, twin 40mm Bofors turrets and Sea Ceptor fit.

Enough space for a re-enforced RM Commando in an emergency.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_820942)
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Whoever came up with design didn’t much notice of 1SL last week, he want it to be able to operate Aircraft and UAV’s. So an upgraded Bay with a through flight deck and hanger.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_820945)
15 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes. I reckon Radakin always wanted LHDs. The Dutch have chosen a too small thru’ deck design without a well deck. I fancy something like the BAe LHD concept: Ocean with a well deck. Hardly Shapps ‘non- complex warships’ though.

Albert
Albert (@guest_820671)
16 days ago

Well whatever it is going to be I hope like it’s previously named HMS Fearless that it’s at least built in a British yard and I really hope that H&W Belfast gets some of the work but I really fear that the rumours of Jeremy Hunt threatening to hold money back from the funding package promised to H&W to enable it to build the 3 ships that we need to survive and prosper

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_820674)
16 days ago

Mmm not sure about helicopter deck ,yes got it’s own hangar but for a landing platform only two helicopters?did the old fearless have four helos ? Come to think of it even the old Tiger class cruiser and sister Blake could carry 3-4 Sea kings 🤔

Louis
Louis (@guest_821021)
15 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Intrepid and Fearless didn’t have a hangar at all.

DB
DB (@guest_820691)
16 days ago

Has this company actually won any contracts? Who funds it? Great designs, who funds it?

Fantastic blurb, but, where does the company come from?

I simply don’t understand how this company survives.

Sonik
Sonik (@guest_820696)
16 days ago
Reply to  DB

It’s the same mob that came up with the LSS converted car ferry concept. I too am intrigued to understand what revenue they exist on.

Mike
Mike (@guest_820741)
16 days ago

Jack of all trades!!! No crane capability? Looking at propulsion no DP capability? Access to cargo spaces via only a back door? Pretty picture but I’m not sure it is the answer to future amphib ops?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820761)
16 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Yeah, lack of crane is puzzling. The ship have containers space between structures, maybe missed on the 3D model? Italian PPA that have also container space in same position have a crane there.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_820763)
16 days ago

I love to see 2 medium guns! BAE 5″ hopefully. I wonder at the reduced survivability of what is an escort type with a large internal space for all the landing craft & RM’s AFVs etc. Interesting concept.

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_820764)
16 days ago

Comes down to requirements. Will the MRSS need to support landing MBTs or AFVs. The solution in this article could be a further watering down (sic) of amphibious power only being able to support lighter forces, which for me, is a concern. Also “..up to 6”, doesn’t mean 6 will be built, and from a military effect perspective, the ability to land and sustain a military force ashore, the UK still requires something like an LPD LSD combination to do that (light forces are just coffin warmers in waiting otherwise), that will give the UK options; unless this Fearless class… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_820784)
16 days ago

Interesting, looks more like a large escort/hybrid amphibious and autonomous vessel mothership….probably better fitted the original ( admittedly cagey) briefing around the type 32 than the MRSS…infact from what has been said this probably fits quite well with what the Norwegian navy said it wanted..and not what the RN said it wanted… interesting fantasy fleet moment…but with this you could actually see where the T32 and MRSS could merge programs into a hybrid littoral vessel..designed to control the littoral with organic sensors and weapon systems ( and so have a lower end escort function) , autonomous vessels as well as… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_820810)
16 days ago

Might have too amend plans as the Royals are looking for a replacement for the trustworthy LCVPs as the new design hasn’t been announced ,ie size and weight ( Forces News) has this been taken into consideration with these new Fearless docking Bay

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard (@guest_820835)
16 days ago

I thought we were doing something jointly with the Dutch. I can’t keep up any more

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_820841)
16 days ago

Both Parties had differing requirements which couldn’t be squared so they decided to end the idea.

Katmandoo
Katmandoo (@guest_820865)
15 days ago

What’s wrong with HMS Albion and Bulwark?

Teves
Teves (@guest_820881)
15 days ago

Do we actually need ships this big, if the comado force are now smaller raiding parties maybe a larger TX ship with better accomodations, faster and can set down 2-3 raiding parties with all their kit from well over the horizon. NGS is now history so maybe fit hmars for barrage before troops land.possibly build 12 as they should be inexpensive and could do the t32 job as well

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_820911)
15 days ago

multi role? something with a large flight deck would be a major bonus.the abilities lost with the sale of ocean have still to be replaced.modern amphibious operations are with helicopters and army has not stormed a beach in decades and I don’t see it happening anytime soon ii don’t think the RN really knows what it wants. kr how it would be used.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_820943)
15 days ago

A bigger version of the Damen P9000 would IMHO be a way better fit. Google it and you’ll see why.

Bleak Mouse
Bleak Mouse (@guest_820947)
15 days ago
harry
harry (@guest_820997)
15 days ago

It will definately be scaled back.. it will end up being commercial grade ship, no armament and we will get one, twice the cost and 10 years late

JOHN MELLING
JOHN MELLING (@guest_821011)
15 days ago

Steller Systems showing yet again that they have the capability to design and build some great ships!

Will be interesting to see the development of this Fearless Class

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_821157)
14 days ago
Reply to  JOHN MELLING

That is a mere 3D model. I could have done that in Blender 😆

Barry
Barry (@guest_821083)
15 days ago

This isn’t an amphibious assault ship its a raiding craft it can’t put troops, vehicles and equipment over the beach. For assault you need a Landing Platform Dock, calling it Fearless is a publicly gimmick just like we called the last Harrier Carrier Ark Royal.

Daniel John Powell
Daniel John Powell (@guest_821706)
13 days ago

I think it is really very good design, only slightly worried as stern gates is small in rear but fit for new impressive boat rapid landing boat I forget what is it called. Only issues I have as sent tank in floating boat m…….x something is big than it. Maybe 6x fearclass MRSS for humanitain (high risk) and lithial strike, highly risk area logically supply mission, mothership drone etc focus on operating by royal navy and 6x ELLINDA MRSS for low risk and humanitarian (low risk) resupply, refuel tanker, hospital ship and loading launch m………. With tank via big stern… Read more »