The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed that the Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme has been renamed the Multi-Role Strike Ship (MRSS) to better reflect its combat capabilities and mission profile.

The clarification came in response to a parliamentary question from James Cartlidge, Shadow Defence Secretary, regarding whether a previous government answer on Fleet Solid Support Ships should have referred to Multi-Role Support Ships. Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that no correction was necessary, as the platform had been renamed.

“MRSS will be a Royal Navy crewed warship with a combat system, self-defence and offensive capabilities. The amended name better reflects the platform’s function and does not indicate any change of requirement,” Eagle stated.

The MRSS programme is a major component of the UK’s future amphibious fleet, intended to replace the Albion-class landing platform docks, Bay-class landing ships, and RFA Argus. Up to six MRSS vessels are expected to be procured, with the first entering service by 2033.

Initially announced in the 2021 defence white paper, Defence in a Competitive Age, the project remains in its concept phase, with an Outline Business Case due by mid-2025 before moving into the assessment phase in 2026.

Industry and Procurement Plans

The Royal Navy and Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) are working closely with UK shipbuilding firms and the National Shipbuilding Office (NSO) to refine key user requirements, conceptual designs, and affordability assessments. According to Eagle, the project remains on track and is funded from the Defence budget.

“The programme aims to deliver the first of class by 2033. This timeline remains on track to meet operational requirements,” she said.

The renaming of MRSS to Multi-Role Strike Ship suggests a more combat-focused role than previously outlined, reinforcing its importance in the Royal Navy’s future force structure.

George Allison
George Allison
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
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

106 COMMENTS

      • Can you imagine making $18,000 a month while working from home just a few hours a day? I’m doing it, and I never thought it was possible until I found this online opportunity. The work is super easy, and you don’t need any prior experience—just a desire to succeed! I can’t believe how much my life has changed in such a short time. If you’re ready to take control of your income, visit the website and get started today!

        Visit This…… 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰.𝐇­𝐢­𝐠­𝐡­𝐏­𝐫­𝐨­𝐟­𝐢­𝐭­𝟏­.𝐂­𝐨­𝐦

        • Scam scam every where but don’t worry , every one is not a cheater, very reliable and profitable site. Thousands peoples are making good earning from it. For further detail visit the link no instant money required free signup and information…….__

          For more information about online businesses,

          go to.…… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/

        • Earning over $15k monthly through a simple online job has been a game-changer for me. Last month alone, I earned $17,529 by dedicating just a few hours online. If you’re looking to increase your online income, you can start earning more cash by following the instructions provided here….

          Open This——➤ 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰.𝐇­𝐢­𝐠­𝐡­𝐏­𝐫­𝐨­𝐟­𝐢­𝐭­𝟏­.𝐂­𝐨­𝐦

      • I’m not sure we could be at war soon according to European intel. If that gloomy forecast is correct these ships may be brought forward?

        • Today the whole world is connecting through internet. home based job to makes extra dollars simply working online. i have made and received $20521 from this job and i gave this only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. This job is so easy just like copy and paste work online and money i made from this are just amazing. you also can earns dollars online from home just by follow instructions on this website.

          HERE →→→ 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰­.­­𝐞­­𝐚­­𝐫­­𝐧­­𝟓­­𝟒­­.­𝐜­𝐨­𝐦

          • Surely the Bays have a lot of life left in them yet, they’re not *that* old and I hope could pootle on for another few decades yet

          • One of the reasons Argus survives is because it has 3 Merlin landing spots. Is she is a guide for the size of force we want MRSS to insert by helicopter? If she had a well deck or a slipway she would be a decent LHD.

    • I g­e­t p­a­i­d o­v­e­r $­2­2­0 p­e­r h­o­u­r w­o­r­k­i­n­g f­r­o­m h­o­m­e w­i­t­h 2 k­i­d­s a­t h­o­m­e. I n­e­v­e­r t­h­o­u­g­h­t I w­o­u­l­d b­e a­b­l­e t­o d­o i­t b­u­t m­y b­e­s­t f­r­i­e­n­d e­a­r­n­s o­v­e­r $­3­5­,­0­0­0 a m­o­n­t­h….➤➤➤ CLICK ON PROFILE

  2. Well this sounds fun!
    So we have RN crewing all but confirmed, but I wonder what “offensive capabilities” means?
    NSM? mk41? Deck mounted MLRS?
    I daresay Steller Systems’ design team are having the last laugh.

      • or even big bertha the 6 inch from Blake when it was retired. I’ve heard that it it is in the old sheds at Catapult and a big bag of spuds

      • Yes, but they helped move the MRSS conversation away from the Ellida type slow and soft RFA type ships.
        A toned down version with CAMM, NSM and the main gun using guided rounds would have been perfect for RN needs and wouldn’t have cost all that much.

    • They amphibious platforms, not gunboats. Strike refers to the amphibious assault/landing capability, which is what they are designed for. Not every platform is going to benefit from a bunch of extra weaponry.

      • There’s a solid argument at the moment that Littoral Strike doesn’t work without fire support for the troops ashore, and the means to attack Area Denial weapons so that the ship and the connectors can move closer inshore. That means NSM at least, unless GMLRS or Land Precision Strike can be made to fire from ships.
        Missile defences like CAMM will be a must.

        • I agree about CAMM but it will also need a cheaper solution against mass drone attack.

          A couple of 40 mm guns and perhaps a couple of 20 mm guns as well.

          By the time they come on line there will be dedicated anti drone ammunition for both calibers

          • I think the 57/40mm combination will do fine for close in defence against drones and missiles using 3P and also guided rounds for the 57mm.
            There are also DEW for the very lightest drones upwards.

          • Which then starts to sound an awful lot like T31+ as you are copying and pasting the. Ore capability for self defence.

      • I believe the idea is that MRSS will be able to operate independently, i.e. without requiring an escort, so it’s going to need the capability to defend itself against air attack, missiles, fast attack craft, etc.

        • and it makes sense. with the lacking numbers, every ship rolled out should have some semblance of offensive capability, especially ships slated to be part of amphibious assault. That way more escorts can be allocated for other missions to greater deny a greater amount of sea to adversaries, while at the same time be close enough to support the MRSS if they are overwhelmed

  3. Hang on … Imagine that…Steller System’s was on the right track all along…
    Only for them to go into administration!
    MRSS is taking too long to sort out…

    • Huge multi year capability gap. Unless Albion and Bulwark are retained then the UK will be discarding it’s ability to strike from the sea and make theRM a raiding and air delivered force only.
      Shocking state of affairs.
      SDSR needs to sort so much out but I think, unlike France now committed to doubling it’s military, the UK is going to continue to ignore and not step up or prepare for the inevitable conflict with Russia.

      • I doubt France will ever double its military.

        That is predicated on them hoovering up a large % of the EU defence funds as France is playing the usual games to exclude UK from the nuclear umbrella conversation. Germany isn’t so keen on relying on France who can be relied upon to be very French when it suits them…

        Micron is after the EU paying for a large % of France’s nuclear triad and then recycling that money into conventional – that is the real game here.

        • Seriously does anyone here – let alone Germany – seriously believe France will lift a finger to help them when push comes to shove. This is as always with France – talk big and get others to pay for it.

          Oh btw I’m not earning $18,000 a month – looking at you Tracey ☹️.

        • I believe there’s another underlying reason here. France has for several decades chided at the bit that the DSACEUR position has always been filled by a Brit. With the potential of the Americans stepping back from Europe (not withdrawing) and, if one follows the thread of relinquishing the position of SACEUR, France and Macron will make a concerted effort to occupy either one of those roles. This would be reinforced by an agreement, as they did several weeks ago to formally commit their nuclear weapons to the protection of the Alliance, which currently only we and the Americans do.

      • SDSR should be unlike others and should focus on the 2025-2029 period, knowing a further SDSR will look to expand our forces with budget growing to 3%.
        Meanwhile focus should be on fixing procurement, recruitment, retention and housing, ensuring enough financial headroom to avoid costly delays due to lack of funds, start growing reserves and munitions and plugging the capability gaps. Plenty for 4yrs.

      • Really?

        Depends what T32 ever was?

        If it was T31B2 as Ben Wallace once let slip then it will be far from dead as it will be the cheapest and possibly quickest way of increasing surface mass.

    • Bye bye T31 – with the need to expand the AAW fleet (and I’d argue the T26 fleet) the crew need to come from somewhere

      • Iver Huitfeldt class had a more advanced AAW radar than T31 so an AAW variant would be a better way to improve air defence at sea (could have Sylver A60 or A70 VLS in place of Mk41), as would the existing T45 upgrade plans and rolling out CAMM-ER to T26 and T31.

    • I’m not sure. Am thinking this could suggest an Absalon with bells on (for amphibious capability) and whistles off (reduced weapons, more like a T31). If a Arrowhead -based T32 were to follow and we order at 15mth intervals we’d achieve the regular drumbeat referred to in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Starmer cited Barrow as a good example and they established a drumbeat there to sort resourcing etc.

  5. A sharper delineation between RN badged vessels that have offensive systems and are expected to go into harms way vs RFA tankers and stores ships in a support role makes sense.

    Expect to see T32 binned in favour of these chances to MRSS and (hopefully) more T31’s.

  6. OK, As support ships I assume they weren’t in the ‘must be built in the UK’ category – not ‘warships’ – as strike ships manned by the RN Iassume they must be built in the UK?

    • If you look in the NSBS they look like they were in the “Large vessel” pipeline behind the FSS so block builds and assembly at H&W.

    • Unions and Scotish government got them designated as “warships” for the purposes of being built in the UK.
      But you can bet they’ll be crewed by the RFA (if it still exists by the time they’re (not) built

  7. Perhaps the first program to have a change in strategy based on the SDR despite it not having been released yet, it seems unlikely that this change would have been made without coordination considering the cost and crewing impacts, however it seems less likely to be a six ship program if they are to be higher end capability ships.

    Perhaps now there is finally the realisation that these will be operating in more contested environments and with escort availability likely very limited (unless the SDR improves escort numbers), will need the ability to defend themselves and potentially support operations independently.

    The focus on increasing the defensive and offensive capability of these ships may indicate an interesting SDR.

  8. The MOD is very good at coming up with an acronym, changing it, then changing it again. Then thinking they’ve done a hard day’s work and putting their feet up. Less good at doing anything useful.

  9. Instead of the end of the type 32, Maybee this is the t32?

    Part frigate part assault ship. Danish absalon style (which is what the t31 is based on?)

    • Endless cost creep until, like T32, it has to go back to the drawing board as it blows the budgets….

  12. Well, well. I’ll have to eat humble pie. I did think all we could afford was a few commercial MV Ocean Trader conversions. It looks like Ellida is dead, long live Strike Frigate. Wonder if you can put a well dock in a T31?

    • I suggested a hull based on the Absalon design but with a stern ramp elsewhere on this site, but someone more knowledgeable than me said it probably wouldn’t have enough troop carrying capacity.

      • They are probably right. Bigger ship needed. I can appreciate that what’s required is probably a new design. To me it looks like a big LPD, 4 landing spots, Mk41, Camm, 57mm, 40mm, a hangar and new ship to shore connectors. Maybe Cammell Laird can do a cheap deal on a refit for Albion and Bulwark?

        • You just described Steller Fearless, near enough.
          I think we will probably get an LPD with CAMM and the 57mm fit.
          Nothing fancy, just a big hangar, a big well dock, and plenty of room for small, fast connectors. Almost certainly to be built by H&W as long as they get FSS out of the way in time.

  14. I have said a number of times I thought the MRSS would turn into a commissioned warship and not an auxiliary. It was always in the tea leaves for reading.

    I would lay even better odds than before on what the RN gets.. it will be something that mitigates the lack of escorts by essentially being its own escort, it will provide a littoral base for drone warfare and or it will serve the RM as a raid platform, so supporting one or two companies, it will have command and control for the raid function and have the capability to take on other functions such as the containerised command modules for the mine warfare capability or a role three medical containerised system.

    I bet the RN gets all six because I suspect the T32 ( which was going to be a littoral combat ship ) is going to be rolled into this.

    I’m betting it’s a 15,000 ton hull, with well deck, fight deck and hanger.. suitable for supporting a marine company or two level raid..that when it’s not full of marines can be used for autonomous surface, sub surface and air opps. Ability to take containerised systems in its vehicle deck for mine warfare. I’m betting it will also have the armament of a patrol frigate.. 57mm medium gun, 40mm cannons, CAMM armament and maybe even a long range precision strike capability, as NSM would make sense on such a platform..

    That has always been my bet as the clues have been out there.

    • 15k tons isn’t all that much for an LPD.
      Are you suggesting something consciously smaller and lighter for raiding?
      The question is, do you stick with a 1x LCU well dock, or just have a stern ramp or two for Commando Insertion Craft?
      A 2 Merlin Hangar is obvious, as is the CAMM/Bofors defensive armament. Do we want something fast, or a typical fat LPD shape?
      Every way I turn I just see a toned down Steller Fearless, help!

      • In the end you have to look at exactly what will be delivered, the army has essentially zero interest in being dumped on a beach by an amphibious assault vehicle and as they have zero expertise or practice that really just leaves the RM and in reality that’s 40 and 45 commando,

        In Reality the RNs best effort amphibious capability for the last 15 years has been one 20,000 ton amphibious assault ship that can transport and deliver 1 commnado using 8 landings craft and then a 15,000 ton logistics vessel that can support a second commando as a second wave using 2 landing craft…now it does not even have that and can only really support raiding with a company via the not really appropriate logistics vessel or an air assault with

        So if we say from the 6 MRSS the best effort is three of them with one of the Elizabeth’s acting as a commando carrier. If your MRSS well deck can take 2 LCU mark 10 sized craft and have 2 spots and hangers for Merlin then 3 MRSS is plenty for 1 commando, with the second commando in the carrier. But well decks may not be where it’s at any more…flooding a well deck leaves you fat heavy and vulnerable as well as very weather dependent.. stern ramps and lighter faster insertion vessels may be the way forward..after all no one is dropping a main battle tank on a beach…

        As for speed if you look at a lot of the concepts for a strike type ship they generally were looking at a frigate type speed…what I suspect we will get is a slightly beefed up verson of BAEs adaptable strike frigate..made slightly larger so it’s got a bigger flight deck and hanger, as well as a mission deck that also has the ability to act as vehicle lanes and home for 2 companies of marines.

        In reality drones have made the littoral a bit of a death trap for slow heavy large amphibious assault vessels..everything will need to be fast and well armed…

        • You just described Fearless.
          An enlarged frigate, with high speed and probably using stern ramps?
          I agree that a true “strike mothership” is the way forwards, but will a smaller, fighty ship be supported by the Navy over a larger, more vulnerable one?

          • I think if the navy had 20 frigates and 10 AAW destroyers as per the 98 review then it would go for a larger more vulnerable one.. as it’s got and will continue to have sod all major surface combatants I think it’s probably finding the idea of a large strike frigate that’s not escort dependent and can even act as a large surface combatant very very attractive.

            In the end if all the large vessels that need protection get build the navy will have 21 large strategic targets ( 2 carriers, 6 amphibious strike, 4 oilers, 3 stores ships and 6 strategic sea lift ships) but only 19 large surface combatants to protect them.. turn the MRSS into a competent 15,000 ton strike ship and suddenly you have 25 major surface combatants and only 16 large high risk strategic targets that need protection.

        • To reduce the load of LCUs in the new vessels would be as daft as omitting the hangar deck off the Albions. Some people might not believe that tanks or vehicles heavier than a Land Rover may need to be landed on a beach in the future but a number nations are investing in faster LCUs that can do precisely that.

          A large well deck could also be useful in carrying autonomous underwater craft and these vessels if designed correctly with a large hangar could act as flagships for ASW task groups accommodating a large number of aerial drones for sub hunting. The GIUK gap is still our weak spot and 8 26s and 9 P8s is not enough. Therefore they need to be truly multi role and if armed with sufficient self defence capabilities and a speed in excess of 22kts they would be very important additions to the fleet.

          There is a lot of contradictory thinking around amphibious strategy at the moment. If you are raiding then you rely on stealth and surprise but if you then utilise small craft these are restricted in the sea conditions you can use them and have limited range. This means bringing the MRSS inshore where it’s size even only frigate size makes it vulnerable notwithstanding if it can do 30kt’s and is armed to the teeth. Your helicopter lift is also less useful and on a smaller vessel where there use becomes more difficult.

          Having spoken to RM’s who have trained on smaller ships such as Singapores Independence class they suggested any frigate sized vessel used in our rough northern waters would be next to useless for strike missions and indeed the RN seem to have abandoned any collaboration with the Dutch for this reason. Whilst not in all our minds any force ashore also requires sustaining in the field and even a large frigate would be compromised in this regard with insufficient storage space to provide logistical support for anything more than a few days.

          If the vessel is large at Albion size or above a well deck and flat top is possibly more useful than a traditional LPD configuration but whatever we get we probably needs to max out on 4 vessels to get the right ship and not another compromised design.

          Perhaps we can do something clever with the Point Class replacement and give them a hangar and a small well deck so they do more than just RoRo.

          It is going to be very interesting to see what design eventually evolves but like most on here I just hope it is truly multi role and not an empty steel craft FFBNW.

          • Thx. Good post highlighting several key points: minimum effective size of ship, number and capacity of connectors, the need for more ASW frigates, expanding Point class replacement into littoral support ships, generous flat top area.

    • Good list of specs there. Just querying why only a 57mm and not something heavier like a 5″ with ER precision munitions?

      • Basically I went with what I thought they will go with, I agree a 5inch would be a very good addition. But I would suspect on cost they will not as 6 five inch guns and all the extras is probably over half a billion dollars…India paid 1.02 billion for 13 of them in 6 years ago.

        • Enjoy reading all your posts BTW. Would the UK have the current ability to produce a navalised 155mm mount based on the M777? I might have the type slightly wrong. Even to rework/upgrade the current RN 4.5″ mounts to 5″ or 6″ mounts? Just thinking that any spare 4.5″ mounts maybe could be recycled? Is land artillery ammunition any different/heavier from naval ammunition?

          • I meant to say is naval ammunition heavier than land or, per equivalent calibre is it the same?

          • There was a 6” [155mm] naval mount project for T45 that got canned when funds ran low.

            BAE got as far as making a prototype. There are handout photos of it around.

            The thing is do we need yet another main gun? Otherwise fleet will be 57mm, 4.5”, 5” and 155mm main guns! Each class will be different.

            Then you have the risk costs of a new weapon in development.

            OK it would be a UKIP weapon but the risk is that it becomes special with ‘cutting edge’ capabilities.

      • Hi Quentin
        About the “navalised 155mm” below, almost all howitzers ashore have all of their ammunition contained in the turret, with resupply through a panel in the rear face.
        The problem is, most naval gunfire missions require a heck of a lot of rounds on target and so you want immediate access to an under deck magazine. That means you have to redesign the turret to the extent that you might as well have just built a new naval turret from scratch.
        As Jonathan said, naval guns are very expensive and so it’s really not worth it over having a slightly larger/faster hull or better defences.

    • I don’t think I would change anything from what you have suggested as it’s pretty much the same as Imythinking. Let’s just hope it happens and we see at least four and hopefully six?

  15. 25 years after this program was first talked about… they’ve managed to change part of the name. Not to mention that there won’t be a proper assault ships or a proper fleet solid stores ship… honestly MOD can’t do anything

    • Huh?
      MRSS has only been a thing for four years, what are you on about? Of course everyone knew the Bays and Albions would need replacing at some point, I’m sure there are already discussions about what follows T26 and the carriers. But the programme has only been around for 4 years.
      They have now moved back towards a “proper assault ship” from a lighter design, and the MOD is also getting three new “proper fleet solid stores ships” in the separate FSS programme.

    • The Albions would have been fine for another decade as will the bays be..so why would then need to build the replacements before now ? It’s only because they decided to decommission the Albions well before they needed to for savings that there is an issue.

      • Wonder whether the decision re the early decommissioning of one or both Albion class may be revisited in the SDR, given recent geopolitical changes and an assured additional MoD budget of £6+Bn from 2027? Running costs were relatively minimal, and one vessel (Albion?) was at least partially through a planned refit. Would seem to be low-hanging fruit. RN has a track record of reversing course as events unfold (e.g., NSM for T-23/T-45, PGMU for T-23, etc.) Tend to believe the blokes at the Admiralty do/will attempt to juggle as many programmes successfully as the budget will
        permit. The RAF as well, for that matter. Revised SDR release schedule is currently June/July? There may be some intriguing revisions w/ greater budgetary headroom. 🤔😉

        • I agree there are a number of very cheap easy low hanging fruit that would make a difference

          In regards to the Albion’s they both have a 12/ 14 year cycle of in service for 6-7 years then of to extend readiness then refit ready for another 6-7 years in service.. Albion has just had its 6-7 years in service and is off to extended readiness and would never be active before 2031/32 so in reality Albion can be got rid of without impact.. but Bulwark was just finishing its refit ready for active service.. so yes I would finish Bulwarks refit.. especially as HMS Elizabeth is just about to enter a long refit for around a year+ in 2025 and then after that Prince of wales will need its long refit, so between 2025 and 2027/8 the RN will only be crewing one carrier.. essentially keeping the two Elizabeth’s and Bulwark means they can always keep two big fight deck ships deployed or at readiness. By the time Bulwark would need an extended expensive refit the first MRSS will commissioned so it can then be disposed of without issue.

          I would also just keep two wave fast fleet tankers in extended readiness as well.. because they are only 23 years old and have a very useful large flight deck, and dry stores capable and actually make useful non kinetic intervention ships as well as fleet tankers and stored ships.. and it’s no money to keep them at extended readiness.

          Other things we may see that are little money but powerful interventions are:

          1) retaining 3 MBT regiments as its only 5 million a tank to turn the extra 70 challenger 2s into challenger 3s and the regiment actually exists.. or if you determined to turn that 3rd regiment into armoured cavalry you could even turn the yeomanry into a proper reserve regiment with their own tanks so you could deploy it as a regiment or as whole squadrons as part of a battle group ( at present the yeomanry are used as a crew replacement pool).

          I would also restart a warrior life extension program.. you could do this for around 2 million per warrior ( when you think a new boxer costs 6 million) so for 500 million you could retain the armoured infantry battalions with tracked IFVs and not just have Mec infantry in wheeled APCs).

          Stuff that takes more cash but is doable

          1) turn 12 squadron ( the joint typhoon squadron) into a front line typhoon squadron for 7 front line typhoon squadrons to do this they really need 24 more typhoons..
          2) 12 more F35b to make 59.. this would allow for 3 front line F35b squadrons ( the RAF would then have 10 ).

  16. Support changed to strike but still multi role. Even though they were used in other roles, the Albions were not really multi role. The RMs move to smaller scale raiding might allow a smaller platform but that doesn’t really apply to the Bays and Argus, which are large second phase supply ships.
    Can a single design really cover both roles?
    If the strike variant is properly equipped for self defence, it would also be able to cover roles currently undertaken by a frigates or destroyers, adding useful mass to the surface fleet.

  18. Reflecting on the selection of Arrowhead with its large flight deck for T31, the abandonment of contested beach assault doctrine, the shrinking of RM, the opting out from the joint future LPD cum OPV study with the Netherlands and the desire to increase escort numbers, it seems to me that the RN thinking on MRSS as a ‘strike frigate’ has been maturing for some time. Unlike the LPDs, a multi-role strike frigate adds value all the time. They could contribute to ASW through slipway launched drones; patrol as singleton global diplomatic gunboat – the next biggest stick up from a T31 and a River 2; contribute as CSG escort.

  19. Well I’ve said it before and I will again for a multi role strike ship the two best partial designs would be the Babcock stretched T31 as the T32 or the Damen Crossover Combattant.

    The main issue that I have is with the main gun, a 57mm is a bit on the small side and the 5 inch a bit on the expensive side, yet to introduce the 76mm causes logistic issues.

    My other concern is that although the concept of a strike frigate is good it still leaves the issues of replacing the Bays with their heavy lift capability. What would be ideal is for a smallish LHD say of 20,000 tons 2-3 of these with 4-6 multi role strike ships of strike frigate concept. One LHD for two strike frigates give a strike group. The LHDs could be of the Dokdo size and capability.

    • What you suggest is heresy -:) MRSS is meant to be 3 or 6 ships of a singe design. That said, as you say, a modest stretch of T31 with a slipway could create a 2 spot flight deck cross over. And Argus is earning its corn as a 3 spot LHD.

  22. They Should give the contract to build some or all these ships to Harland & Wolff Belfast now its under Spanish ownership. The Parent company is Navantia is a Spanish state-owned shipbuilding enterprise dedicated to civil and military naval construction. UK Government should of taken a stake in Harland & Wolff as its of national strategic importance.

  23. They Should give the contract to build some or all these ships to Harland & Wolff Belfast now its under Spanish ownership. The Parent company is Navantia is a Spanish state-owned shipbuilding enterprise dedicated to civil and military naval construction. UK Government should of taken a stake in Harland & Wolff as its of national strategic importance.

  24. So as MRSS is replacing 3 LSDA’s and Argus where are the RN getting the people to operate these 6 ships? Also give the fact the RFA has operated Amphibious shipping since WWII and until MRSS is actually build will be the only operators, I must ask where is the SQEP coming from???

  25. Surely a ‘strike’ ship to be able to facilitate a range of small amphibious operations if necessity dictates needs to be able to carry out the following:
    1) Be able to launch 30+ drones of varying sizes and ranges simultaneously.
    2) Be able to launch similar sized follow on drone waves.
    3) Be able to launch at least 4 chinook sized helicopters. (Seem to remember a Quote ‘you can never have too many helicopters’ from some previous amphibious operation). Probably advisable to have a couple of attack helicopters as well.
    4) Be able to transport anything up to and including MBT’s to shore quickly. Even if it’s only 4/ship, history demonstrates you’ve got to be ready for anything and hoping for the best or assuming others will provide is clearly negligent at best dangerous at worst.
    5) Be able to defend against saturation attack from an enemy’s missiles & drones.
    6) Be able to command & control all the above along with networked assets.
    7) Have sufficient capacity to store ammunition, fuel, stores etc for all the above for at least 2weeks war fighting.
    8) I’d also suggest a long range MLRS and a couple of 155mm or 5’ would be welcomed by the unfortunate commandos having to carry out the operation.
    9) As regards capacity I’d suggest 2 together need to be able to land and support a RM commando at least. (Reforming the 3 Commando’s has got to be in the Strategic Defence review).
    10) Finally I’d suggest the design has to be a flat top LHD type to meet the above airborne and ship to shore demands. This design has clearly got the capability to offer numerous flexible options up planners.
    In the meantime don’t gap Albion & Bulwark obviously.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here