The Ministry of Defence has resisted calls to bring forward the in-service date or increase the build rate of the Royal Navy’s Multi-Role Strike Ship (MRSS) programme, despite a pointed parliamentary intervention by former First Sea Lord Lord West and mounting concern over the retirement of key amphibious platforms.
In a written question tabled on 14 July, Lord West asked whether the Government planned to accelerate delivery of the first MRSS and what steps were being taken to speed up construction of the remaining five vessels.
Responding for the Government, Defence Minister Lord Coaker stated that the programme “remains on target for the first of class to be delivered in the early 2030s” and is still progressing through its Concept Phase. He added that the Royal Navy and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) are working on “key user requirements, conceptual designs, affordability, and exportability assessments.”
This respons matches with previous public statements from the MOD but offered no new commitment to advancing timelines or scaling production.
More detailed information about the MRSS class has gradually emerged. At the Combined Naval Event in Farnborough in May 2025, officials outlined that the ships will include a well deck, extended-range insertion craft, a hangar-equipped flight deck, and a mission bay suitable for operating uncrewed maritime systems. The ships are also being designed to be fitted for but not with directed energy weapons, and the MOD is considering options to integrate vertical launch cells.
Two types of future landing craft are in development for the MRSS: the Commando Insertion Craft (CIC), which will deliver troops, vehicles and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; and the Commando Utility Craft (CUC), which may be adapted for uncrewed systems or containerised strike capabilities. In March 2025, Defence Minister Maria Eagle confirmed that the ships had been renamed Multi-Role Strike Ships to reflect their planned combat capability.
The Concept Phase is scheduled to conclude in 2026, after which the programme will enter the assessment stage. The MRSS class was first mentioned in the 2021 Integrated Review and funding was announced in 2024. The plan is to procure up to six vessels to replace the Albion-class LPDs, the Bay-class LSDs and RFA Argus.
The MoD is very good at concept phases.
So, still no sense of urgency… Where it is possible to speed things up, I would have thought it obvious that it should be done!
Only bla bla bla but no new orders . Britain wll be the last country between Major powers.
Only 15 escorts
150 aircraft
100 tanks.
Ridiculous
As an example a mid Power as Spain has more aircraft and tanks and with New orders of 25 additional F18,s and more eurofighters.
Future orders for a New conventional Carrier and 2 LPH,s
Is Britain a Major power now ?.
Spain has next to no capability to project naval power, no nuclear deterrent, no penetrating capability within its air force, and aircraft carrier fully reliant on outdated jump jets, little in the way of aerial refueling capability, no global airlift capability, et cetera.
Given the list of planned capabilities, I am left wondering what the purpose of the elusive Type 32 is expected to be?
Not sure but this is starting to look like a big ship. Everything depends on the size of the Commando to be deployed. If it is to be 120 RMs then a reworked AbSalon class/ Damen Crossover type/Babcock T32 design type ship would do the trick. If it is to be 360-600 RMs then it would be more like a San Antonia class at the Hi end or the Damen Enforcer class at the lower end of cost.
For my thinking a good all round solution would be to have 6 T32s with 120 RMs 3-5 fast insertion craft and a hnager for 2 Merlins plus 4 RUAVs. A Multi Mission Deck below the hanger flight deck would give the flexibility in tasking. If this type of vessel was built using the Babcock T32 concept or Damen Crossover concept they would also be able to carry out frigate tasking and or act as the escort for the MRSS. As for the MRSS I would use the Enforcer as a base concept. In many ways I do like the BMT Ellida design and the flexibility that they have. However, the design is more tailored to replenishment at sea and transportation of troops rather than war fighting, as BMT says it is a multi role logistic ship. Possibly a very good design to replace the Bays, Argus but as a strike ship?
I do think that we should base the designs on off the shelf designs and don’t play with them to much.
So the first question to be answered is how many troops and what equipment will they need.
How far off shore will the insertion take place.
What is the hanger capacity for the embarked air componant, ( For the MRSS I would prefer 6 helicopters, 4 Merlins and 2 Apaches, but thats me).
What speed and range will the ship have.
Now that you have answered these basic questions you can start forming a design.
Then comes the next set of questions
What is the mission bay to be like, e.g. T26 concept or below flight/hanger deck with bay doors.
What radar suite will she have, local such as Artisan or full fit out such as the T45.
What is to be her Command and Control capability.
Now you get a better idea of size.
The comes the final question
What is to be her weapons fit
Is she to have point defence, 40mm/57mm; area defence Sea Ceptor, Shore bombardment 5in gun with Valcano ammo, or Strike ability Mk41s. Or will she depend on her escorts.
As I said before she is strarting to look like a gig ship.
Actually the first question is are we prepared to order then from abroad or not ? If it’s the latter then there is no suitable yard available so just get on with the project and wait for H&W to follow the FSS builds.
Good point.
I’m not surprised that MOD is pushing back at pressure to speed up the MRSS project, it would be pretty pointless and wasting money better spent on higher priorities. That may sound a bit negative and all these calls for ordering more ships from folks who just don’t understand that our capacity to build is much reduced and is 100% maxed out on existing work which will take them into the next decade.
MRSS is due to be about 15K tonnes.
BAe Clyde is 100% busy on T26 work that will go on into the mid 30’s when they move over to the T83, if they do get the Norwegian export order then they will have to speed up the process, and at present that is not happening due to the staged payments from HMG. Besides which the only slip left that could be used is smack bang in the middle of the T26 block assembly area. So no chance !
Babcock Rosyth are similar to Clyde but with the T31 which will take them till early 30’s (and they may get more orders in DIP25). Other issue is at 15k tonnes where do you build it ? Both Drydocks are busy so can’t be used and their yard just isn’t big enough (no slipway or building dock). So same as BAe.
BAe Barrow is now 100% focussed on Astute, Dreadnought and then SSNA), I don’t even knows if any of the old slipways still exist So again no way.
CL are busy with RN / RFA maintenance and refits, plus building blocks for T26 so would need to completely regenerate a shipbuilding capacity. So again no way.
Then we get to H&W who are now regenerating their shipbuilding capacity to build the higher priority FSS vessels ! But once they are built it’s the yard that’s best suited to build them or else be shut down again.
So Lord West can chirp on all he likes but as it stands they will be built after all the other projects that are in build, so probably H&W in early 30’s.
Meanwhile sone should bite the bullet boost recruiting and not sell of the Albions.
Wasn’t there some statement about speeding up he MOD procurement life cycle? Seems yet again that politicians words are not matched by their actions
It’s all driven by one simple resource Money, it’s the single reason why we in U.Kgake soooo long to buy any new kit and why it’s always such a long delivery process. Yep they can speed up the process leading up to actual contract signing but after that it’s driven by the staged payments.
For example :-
MOD order 300 new SPGs and we want to order Firm A’s SPGs.
Firm A they will cost £3 Billion, lead time is 2 years and delivery over 4 years, that’s based on us running our plant at optimum production rate of 75 pa so you pay us £750 million pa over 4 years.
MOD sounds great, these are what we want but Treasury can only afford £500 million pa as we have lots of projects to pay for, is that OK.
Firm A Yes but as it’s inefficient the cost will now be £3.6 Billion.
MOD OK but is will have to be 7 years as we still only have £600 million pa in the budget.
Bottom line is most bits of U.K. defence industry can build faster but HMG will not pay for it.