Graeme Downie, Labour MP for Dunfermline and Dollar, recently posed a parliamentary question regarding the status of the contract for six new Multi-Role Support Ships for the Royal Navy.
The question was directed to the Secretary of State for Defence and addressed the anticipated timeline for the craft to enter service.
In a response dated 25th July 2024, Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, provided an update on the Multi-Role Support Ship Programme, under which these craft will be procured.
According to Eagle, the programme is currently in its concept phase. “The Royal Navy and Defence Equipment and Support Teams are currently conducting detailed work on requirements, design, and procurement strategy, informed by early industry engagement,” she stated.
Eagle said that the primary focus at this stage is to set the programme up for success, with ongoing efforts to ensure affordability. As for the timeline, she indicated that the Multi-Role Support Ship is anticipated to enter service in the early 2030s. “It is too early to confirm details such as the precise in-service dates,” she added.
Previously, in response to a question from then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey MP, regarding the funding and procurement process for the Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS), James Cartlidge, former Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, provided the following written statement.
The statement reads.
“Funding for the concept phase of the Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) has been approved by HM Treasury. I can confirm that the platform will be procured through the new Integrated Procurement Model (IPM), which I recently announced. As such, the next step in the programme will be for me to receive and review the Independent Advice Note (IAN) on MRSS which will inform the concept and design phases of the programme.
As I said in my Oral Statement of 28th February, announcing the IPM, the aim of this note is ‘to provide a credible second opinion for Ministers to weigh alongside the military’s proposed requirement’ (Hansard ref).
The IAN will provide advice on key policy choices, to ensure we set the programme up for success from the off. In particular, this is to ensure core policy issues are transparently considered at the earliest stage, and then locked down as far as possible, so that the remaining procurement stages can proceed at pace, and in a context of underlying policy certainty. Policy areas to be informed by the IAN will include:
- Industrial options, to be supplemented by in-depth engagement with industry;
- Exportability, enabling any related campaigns to commence at the earliest opportunity, and providing transparency over any potential mismatch between domestic and international market requirements;
- Full cost transparency, including the likely cost of associated and dependent enablers; and
- Technological considerations, informed by wargaming and other evidence.
Advice would draw on expertise from across the Defence Enterprise, including, but not restricted to: DSTL; DE&S; DSE/DBT.
The total programme budget will be allocated on completion of the concept phase. It is too early in that process to have committed expenditure or actual spend.
MRSS will enter service in the early 2030s, providing highly flexible warships, able to deploy on a wider variety of operations. They will be lean-crewed, with the precise crew requirement being confirmed during the concept phase.”
Clarified: make (a statement or situation) less confused and more comprehensible.
I’m not sure if Maria Eagle’s statement passes that test.
Waffle Waffle make statements that have plenty of wiggle room to change your mind.
*typical politicians
Given the RN is still only scoping these ships what more can you actually expect?
Yes, and is there an actual contract for three or six ships? Still think an Ocean +dock/Mistral type LHD would be good for more helos, lc’s, for backing up the MRSS’s/LRG’s when needed and even handling the odd F35Bs. So 6+1 ships.
LHD the most sensible option for me. Six would be ideal. With the aim of keeping four in service, while two roll through maintenance or upgrade as required. If I was building them today I would also ensure they could defend themselves from drones and missiles.
LHDs in general are the ideal design for a small amphibious fleet, but 6 is a stretch for us, we’ve been operating 5 vessels of various types since 2010 but most of those were paid for by previous budgets.
These are intended to replace six ships – 2 Albion class (although how operational they are is a matter for debate), 3 Bay class (from an original class of 4 – all 3 are currently operationally deployed) and RFA Argus (also currently deployed).
They are intended to but costs aren’t going to nessecarily allow all 6 to be replaced, 6 is unrealistic with our current budget unless we go for something not particularly capable
I’d give the ships a combat standard radar e.g. ARTISAN and Combat Manage System. I would then fit them with pretty much as RFA currently are i.e. minimalist weapons. Then if they are required to go into a high threat area I would attach a couple of Autonomous Arsenal Ships to provide the fire power where and when it is needed. According to a recent Navy Lookout article the NavyX is planning to fit an autonomous navigation system to their experimental trials vehicle XV Patrick Blackett next year. The aim would be to explore autonomous navigation and establish how mature… Read more »
CR, great post. Just read the article over on Lookout, really interesting concept. I always find it interesting how we picture a taskgroup operating at sea, mainly driven by nonsense PR photos that we seem to self-generate for NavyNews. The range and speed of munitions have seen the surface and sub-surface picture expand incredibly. Operating over-the-horizon i becoming an increasingly normal method of working and Arsenal Ships may have their place in systems-led offensive and defensive capability. NavyX are doing some really good unspoken work under Admiral Parkin to develop these concepts and saving the Fleet from tedious trials work… Read more »
6 is unrealistic. 2-3 will be enough as an sea landing these days with 24/7 drone coverage would be insanely difficult and risky. The only reason the Falklands worked was Argentina didn’t see it coming from the specific beach, if they had it would have been a very different outcome, which they would with how drones have been used in the Ukraine war. Add another 10-20 years (likely enter service date) and networked land based surveillance drones will be cheap as chips and it will be near impossible to get the jump on anyone. A distributed and fast helo landing… Read more »
We need to accept the drone has changed warfare. However if you accept your premise that landing craft are to slow. The same can be said for any land based vehicle. Indeed on a separate thread on here in relation to Boxer the need for a drone protection was raised. Landing craft are no different. Indeed the USMC are looking at such protection for their LCAC. Again I still think a fleet of six would give much more flexibility. Aiming to have four in service. One being used as West Indies guard ship. In that role and providing cover in… Read more »
Yep. The challenge with a landing craft is the drone doesn’t need to attack it, it just needs to identify its location for artillery / missiles to be sent it’s way. A ship providing air defence can help defend the landing craft but their slow speed gives plenty of time for saturation attacks and land forces to be moved into place. Helicopters are hugely risky also as both Ukraine and Russia have found but probably have a better chance of getting through before significant reinforcements can be brought in by the enemy. I suspect it will be some time before… Read more »
I fully agree that every front line military vehicle needs drone counter measures.
It’s an interesting point though about getting armour ashore. Today we could probably land maybe 10 tanks with the fleet number (but that would take up room for troops) and then would need to taxi them in, realistically any beach landing needs the fire power to not need tanks as they will take too long.
They need something like boxer or foxhound armed with brimstone or similar.
At least one will need to be in the PCRS role, so although 2-3 might be enough for doing an amphib landing, it’s not enough to also provide a floating hospital.
Part of me thinks not having a dedicated hospital ship is a mistake. The other part saws in a war would an enemy really not target it, at which point it needs defensive capabilites.
The issue is right now argue has very limited defensive capability, considering it would have to operate close to shore.
Argus is not a hospital ship though, it’s PCRS.
It’s not a Hospital Ship, it’s a Primary Casualty Receiving Ship, which means it has defensive capabilities, in line with every other RFA. It also doesn’t need to operate close to shore, a Merlin has a range of over 1,000km. Even if you want to do a round trip without refuelling on RFA Argus, that’s still several hundred kilometers offshore. At the end of the day you’re going to want to have a Role 3 afloat, both for supporting naval operations and for off shore support to land forces, and that means a ship to carry it, and that means… Read more »
It’s be realistic argus is a hospital ship it just doesn’t meet the Geneva convention definition as it is armed. It would operate in the same way as one in a war situation.
My point was when we replace argus switching it to a proper hospital ship the right way to go.
No, Steve, there are very important differences between a PCRS and a Hospital ship and just “not meeting the Geneva convention definition because it’s armed” is by far not the be all and end all of it, and if you understood that you’d understand that switching it to a proper hospital ship is NOT the right way to go. Because: Under the terms of the international Red Cross once you put a red cross on a platform (Vehicle, Aircraft, Ship etc) that platform becomes a medical facility IN PERPETUITY. That means you can not simply scrub off the red crosses… Read more »
Dern, completely correct and really well explained. Thank you. There is a really interesting example of the real-life consequences of this in Ken Privratsky’s Logistics in the Falklands (great book, would recommend to anyone who wants to understand how campaigning is actually sustained/possible.) The intention was to use RY BRITANNIA in her secondary role as a hospital ship, which was a long-term justification for funding the hull in the first place. However, it would have meant an end to future flexibility of operations. No more RM guards; no more occasional sneaky Int tasks; no more use as a floating… Read more »
I will of course self-correct to Her Majesty’s… it was 1982 after all
Really informative reply. I had no idea about the rules concerning hospital ships. Thank you!!!
It doesn’t look like the Navy wants an LHD. I found a Dutch naval website a few months ago that included a report from their parliament. The defence committee had had a briefing detailing why we split with them over the ship designs. Apparently the Dutch are in favour of a less heavily armed and lighter design. Because this will be their main “capital ship”, they assume that if there is any threat at all, an escort will be assigned. The RN, on the other hand, will operate the ship by itself in “medium threat” environments (e.g. Houthis) and so… Read more »
I thought the Dutch wanted a single class to replace their LPD and their Holland OPVs. Quite a big ask. Add in the preference for a thru’ deck design and hence the Portuguese Damen MPSS choice. I suspect the RN would like half a dozen San Antonio class LPDs. Very expensive. Maybe we can afford 6x 2 spot Enforcers, but then you have compromised what you want for the sake of having a single class. I wonder if committing to just 3 is a way of keeping open the option of a 2 class fallback solution of some kind –… Read more »
6 through decks would be my hope, offering adaptability as drone technology improves while also adding diversification in the extreme need of ships f35s could recover too
Fantasy I know lol
Evening SB, just three of anything doesn’t seem enough. But a three of a more tier one heavier armed design (San Antonio type) and three of lighter armed (Enforcer/Ellida/Bay type) tier two might be what they go for. The two Damien designs do look pretty neat and functional and could be good for littoral/regional support. BAE had a LHD design that looked like Ocean, helo deck with dock plus 40/57mm and RAM/CIWS, if the carriers aren’t available then something this could still be very useful for force projection and insertion, supporting MRSS and even used as a mother shop for… Read more »
My personal preference is similar to yours, but taken to an extreme. Firstly, three extra large LPD with full defensive fit, 5″, CAMM etc to be operated by the Navy. These form the LRGs and provide large scale raiding and commando insertion. An example would be a three-spot Enforcer. Secondly we buy at least three ships along the lines of another Damen design called the Landing Ship Transport, LST 120A. This is a very large oceangoing landing craft with an open vehicle and working deck. It can put any size of vehicle ashore over a beach (assuming it can wade)… Read more »
I suspect the navy doesn’t want a LHD, because they are scared it will impact the carriers.
Got to agree. The lphd platforms can serve as a useful escort/ ASW carrier.
Evening Mr Bell! Yes, we’re the same on this. And thank you for saying LPHD too, I 💭 I had left out a letter!
“As for the timeline, she (Ms. Eagle) indicated the Multi-Role Support Ship is anticipated to enter service in the early 2030s.” Ummm…er…perhaps a trifle optimistic, given the track record of Astutes, T-26s, etc.?
All this “2030s” time frame. Isn’t there any urgency by the powers that to get more done in the next 1-5 years and action to deal with the present and near future? Hope to God that Europe and the UK and even the rest of the world don’t ever descend into the levels of destruction in Ukraine and Gaza.
Given the manpower issues the RN/RFA has, maybe focusing on that in the next few years rather than new hardware in this regard?
Yes, I was about to raise this point. Why are these grandiose equipment plans even on the table until the fundamentals are sorted? Recruitment, retention, pay and improving the base housing and food should be the absolute priority.
Focus, yes, but it can’t be to the exclusion of future hardware. We need to be able to walk and chew gum as the Americans say.
You mean like the current order of warships and support ships that are already contracted for the next decade? Where is the dockyard space in the next 5 years for this new class if you think it’s needed now? Maybe deal with people so the Albions could return to service might be a more immediate solution?
I’m saying we have to think about the future as well as the present. Sorting out one at the expense of the other is a bad idea. There are multiple problems that need to be considered holistically. The Albion class is RN crewed, which won’t help the RFA situation, which is even more urgent. Then as you say, there’s the dock space problem, and I suspect, the availability of maintenance engineers. We need to do it all. Are you asking if I think 600 crew should be assigned to the ships of the Albion class? I don’t think that’s the… Read more »
We have to be realistic. The size of our national debt is huge and our high interest rates mean that it’s eating up a sizeable chunk of the treasury income. I don’t think anyone realistically believes Russia will be a threat in the next decade and outside them there is no realistic threat, any war outside that would be us supporting allies and not defending ourselves at which point we can bring as much or as little as we like. Whilst the Russia threat is off the tables, rushing defence purchases won’t be a policitical focus. I was stunned when… Read more »
Surely the response should have been the same as for GCAP. Which was the defence review will decide if these are needed. Bit odd.
I wonder if the direction to ensure the vessels are exportable with remain after all that was so last government 😃
Well WW3 should be over by then, and depending in the outcome, we shall see whether they are ever built.
Support ships or amphibious assault ships in the real sense? LPD, LPH??
Be nice to have a bit of both.
Labour has all three constituencies in fife surrounding Rosyth dockyard and all 6 in Glasgow surrounding Govan. Ship building will be safe at these sights for sure now which is probably going to mean more frigates or getting all 6 of the amphibious ships built and it’s going to be very important having highly capable MP like Graeme Downie keeping naval ship building front and centre.
One of the most ridiculous naval projects ever, not only as another reader has commented that WW3 (and probably 4) will be over by then, but also even if 6 ships were built at 100 troops per ship….think about it….what logistical edge would that give us?
Move on to new concepts for troop and hardware transport.
If anything all the talk about LHD just brings to the fore the Elephant in the Front Garden. We do not have sufficient Maritime Helicopters ! Someone posted the other day about the New Medium Helicopter project, what ever they eventually decide on it has to be Maritime operable with Salt water protection, tie down points and folding rotors. Their suggestion was to just stop buggering about with a new expensive project that will take years and just buy a new batch of Merlin’s. I am willing to bet that as it is for the Army what ever is chosen… Read more »
I haven’t seen any talk from the RN about LHDs, very unlikely tbh.
We have plenty of Marine helicopters for 6 or less LPD type ships.
For the RAF mate, the Army don’t operate battlefield support helis. That job is split between the RAF SHF and the RNs FAA.
If you meant the army are the primary customers of said assets, apologies.
To summarize, they are still talking about it
What else do you expect when there is a major defence review taking place. Given the need for some new capabilities (a modern GBAD for one) I believe the MOD needs to take a fresh look at the actual threats to the UK over the next 20 + years and check to see how what we currently have, or are getting, matches that threat and where the gaps are. The days of each service getting one for one replacements are probably over – just because we had six does the actual threat warrant another 6 as replacement or will more… Read more »
We currently have 2 Amphibious Warfare ships. Neither of which are operational. Regardless of if the final figure is 3,6 or 600, ordering 1 would be a good start instead of continuing to talk about it? We’ve been talking about replacements for years.