Britain will invest in a new class of larger amphibious transport ships to support Commando Force operations, with the stated aim of bringing them together with the Netherlands into a combined fleet, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The vessels form one strand of a wider programme to convert the UK Commando Force into what the department calls the Future Commando Force, an effort now weighted towards the High North and backed by a commitment of more than £500 million. New Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis, appointed earlier this month, has spent his first fortnight reshaping the Defence Investment Plan around equipment for frontline units, and the amphibious ships sit in that package alongside new high-speed insertion craft and uncrewed systems.

Jarvis tied the spending directly to the Commandos’ equipment needs. “We’re investing in new lethal strike drones, high-speed boats and amphibious transport ships to give our Commandos the equipment they need to stay ahead of adversaries and defend us,” he said.

The announcement would go a way to rebuild an amphibious fleet that has thinned considerably. The Royal Navy has been without a dedicated landing platform dock since HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the two Albion-class flagships, left service in 2025. Their planned successor had been pursued under the Multi Role Strike Ship programme, a project for up to six vessels intended to replace the Albions, the three Bay-class landing ships and the aviation support ship RFA Argus, with the first hull expected in the early 2030s and the effort moving from its concept phase into assessment during 2026. It is unknown whether this replaces that project.

British and Dutch marines have operated together in the UK/NL Amphibious Force for more than fifty years, and in 2023 the two governments signed a memorandum of understanding, known as Project CATHERINA, to study a shared amphibious ship design. That joint-design ambition was set aside in 2024 once the two navies judged their requirements and budgets too far apart for a single hull, with work redirected towards interoperability and common subsystems such as landing craft, cranes, dock doors and propulsion.

The Netherlands is already planning six Amphibious Transport Ship vessels, a concept pictured above, to replace its Rotterdam-class landing platform docks and Holland-class patrol vessels, with deliveries planned from 2032.

A combined fleet of the sort the Ministry of Defence now describes would draw those two national programmes into closer alignment than the subsystem-level cooperation the navies had most recently settled on, putting shipping able to move marine raiding forces through the contested waters of NATO’s northern and Baltic approaches under a shared Anglo-Dutch design philosophy.

The refreshed Defence Investment Plan is expected to be published before NATO leaders meet in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, a summit at which allied defence spending and industrial capacity are set to dominate.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

133 COMMENTS

  2. I wonder how shared this will be. Are we going to jointly buy and share hulls or just production and each individual nation has it’s own hulls. Sharing hulls themselves could be an interesting way to get capability on the cheap. Brings political risk of only being able to use when both nations agree but better than not having the capability at all

    • Numbers carefully avoided. “Up to 6” MRSS were planned for full replacement of the 2 LPDs, 3 Bays, and Argus.
      Anything less is a cut, so I’d hoped the 6 would be multi role like the MRSS to add some mass to the escort fleet.
      Who would build them, and when, keep hearing our yards are maxed out? Babcock, after T31?

      • I guess next in line with whatever yard frees up next. Advantage it keeps yards open, disadvantage it means a long delay.

      • Babcock are what on to steel cutting for hull 4? Unless they get export orders pretty quickly, they are going to be looking desperate for something to keep the yard open.

      • If we do get 6 would it be better to build six of the same vesels or 3 bay replacements and three lighter better armed MRSS type vessels that can launch the CIC?
        Bay replacements being large basic RFA, very similar to the bays. Lightly armed, high capacity. Space for two helicopters and well deck for drones and ship to shore connectors
        Albion/argus replacement being something crossed between a frigate and an LPD with the ability to launch the CIC from Davits or a stern ramp. Similar to the concept from BAE.
        Probably only end up with three vessels in total that are a compromise of the two designs and suit nobody

        • Yes, the Bays are so useful for HADR as well.
          I think everyone would bite your arm off for 3 of both.
          They’ll halve it to 3 and call it a win, pretty standard spin.
          The CIC are not new either, incase they start spinning those as suddenly appearing in the DIP by magic.

          • Wouldn’t you wonder how the requirements of the 2 navies differed so much that the shared amphibious ship design was cancelled? Both navies and Marine corps train extensively together, both are in NATO. Was there more gold plating and exquisite design going on ? Or more informed decisions…

            • From memory, when the joint development was being discussed, I think the Dutch wanted a modest sized design that would replace their Holland class OPVs as well as their large LPDs, whereas the RN wanted an out and out large, armed LPD design.

                • ‘Larger amphibious transports’ with a thru’ deck for ‘lethal strike drones’ plus lots of heli spots and a large well dock for new CICs. Isn’t that a description of a San Carlos?

                    • Indeed, but as others have pointed out, in the eyes of the Treasury, that would question the decision to build the QE class.

            • The Dutch wanted smaller multi purpose littoral combatants at about 150ms long ( probably 7000- 10,000 tons) and with a crew of 50-60. These could act as both amphibious vessels for company + sized units as well as patrol vessels and mother ships for autonomous vessels… the RN decided it wanted very large amphibious vessel ( closer to 20,000 tons )..

      • My guess would be on Babcock building them, if it’s based on the enforcer than Damen was proposing then Rosyth can handle them.

        Bad news for Navantia unless we go to the expense of building the point class replacement then tide class replacement there. I’m personally ok with that but it’s probably going to be expensive.

        • Unless they get the contract for the MCMV motherships and any replacements OPVs? A bit of a waste for such a big yard to be churning out small ships but keeps the staff employed

        • Apparently T83 is toast – too expensive and too valuable to put in harms way. FADS will be implemented with up to 6 ‘common combat vessels’ which will control cheaper drones in a layered defence arrangement. A Babcock built iteration of T31 would be a strong candidate for these ‘common combat vessels.’

          • My concern is that these 6 ‘common combat vessels’ might be replacing both the Type 83 and the MRSS project…

            • Yes, I understand that concern. There is the risk that circumstances are manoeuvring us into a place where Babcock and T31 are the answer to every question…

        • Thats extremely unlikely, I like the flexibility of a through deck though, it gives great adaptability.

          I suspect ( if built) it will be a case of 6 to 8 helos and various drones.

        • The image seems to only allow 2 UH60 class helis to operate. The bow seem to have some other devices. If that image is the correct ship, this means they are probably the size of a San Giorgio Plus and means the RN will follow the Dutch wishes of a smaller amphibious ship.

          • Yes it is relatively small. This looks like a very early design concept rather than a real ship design. Even the skin flint RN would fit a CIWS but this is not shown. I would like to see VLS for some Sea Crptor….

            • A 57mm upfront and maybe a sneaky plan to sell CAMM to the Dutch! I like your thinking. Maybe other nations like Denmark and Norway might be interested in this type too?

        • That’s maybe why it will not happen..?
          Royal Navy petrified they’ll lose QEC to a LHD…! Takes their f35b to a new cheaper platform..

      • We’re the only country who’s politicians use the term, ‘Up To’. This term should be banned, any Politician using this term should be keel hawled. Just say how many you are going to build for goodness sake. Be honest 🧐

    • I don’t know but I suspect they are replicating the Norway deal for different theatre’s and their contexts, doubles as a means for maintaining domestic (I hope) industry capacity and ability to scale up while sharing the cost.

      Strategically it means if/should we need to go it alone we can because we’d have maintained capability and capacity, also similar deal gives us strategic leverage with Europe in a way where they share in the costs and contribute. While also being part of any European Security focused body and influencing within too.

      Based purely on assumptions of – just wanted to offer an abstracted view

      There’s a lot more detail needed on this plan but the broader ideal of bi-lateral security agreements seem to be coming to bare or at least is interesting to me

    • Sounds like another round of organised confusion here, tried to combine ideas, failed, went our own ways with some crossover, back to square one trying to combine ideas again, rinse and repeat but delayed by 5 years. How very Starmeresk, saves money in the short term I guess. Is there anything solid here at all or just another bunch of committees exploring if something concrete can be presented as a proposal at sometime in the future.

  3. I hadn’t realised quite how big the Ditch fleet was until I just checked on Wikipedia.
    It raises the question, should we be reinstalling. “blocking” chains across the River Medway 😀😀😀

    On a serious note, a fleet of 6 is quite a large commitment, so let’s see what the RN decide to do.

    • A fleet of six ‘quite a large’ commitment ? Youve got to be joking surely. These things are meant to replace T45 which started off as a class of 12, then shrunk to 8 , then to six, and even with 6 we struggle to deploy one. The Dragon debacle ? I rest my case. How can a much smaller ship , hybrid or not be very good news. I like T45 but the numbers just not enough , same with Astute. We’ve now got five can’t even keep one at sea. The real problem we have with T45 ( and T26 and T31) is just not enough silos , Mk 41, CAMM mushrooms or whatever and that is with the T45 CAMM enhancement too taking them up to 72. So how can a much smaller ship carry an equal punch in terms of silos even if totally unmanned or whatever !

      • We can’t be bothered to make a proper Type 83 so will make some crappy drones solution incapable of using a radar to properly detect ballistics and hypersonic, cut the VLS drones because of that then realise the carriers are at massive risk so start Type 83 and have to power through by throwing money at the issue all because the MOD and Treasury never learn anything and always think of the short term budget to the end of the year.

  4. So one moment they’re obsolete according to some, and we need smaller ships as the UKCF “only do raiding now” ( not quite so, but anyway ) and then this turns up.
    “Larger Transport Ships.” 🤔
    3 at the most I’d imagine. Thought the MRSS plan had some merit, if the vessel could do a Strike role as well and act as a light Frigate alongside dropping Commandos.
    “High Speed Insertion Craft.” That terminology usually applies to the boats used by the SBS LRI & MRI Troops, so assume that’s the long ongoing LCVP replacement.

    • ““Larger Transport Ships.” 🤔” Yes, larger than what: the 16,000 ton Bays, 19,000 ton Albions or 28,000 ton Argus?

      The image (and I know it is only there because every press release or article needs something visual) looks a lot smaller and makes me think of an even smaller version of Damen’s Multi-purpose Support Ship, which they are building as the NRP D. João II for the Portuguese Navy – and that is reportedly only 7,000 tons with hanger space for 1 helicopter and some UAVs To an extent that makes sense, given that the Dutch want this to replace four OPVs but it seems rather small as a replacement for their two LPDs, let alone the RN’s requirements.

      I could see an intermediate sized (10-15,000 ton) LHD-type with decent self-defence capabilities making sense for the RN both as an amphibious ship and to support the uncrewed sensor vessels that are proposed for the ‘Atlantic Bastion’ and to prosecute any contacts with ASW helicopters, rotary UAVs and (maybe) some ASROC-type weapon from and Mk. 41 VLS. <7000 tons, not so much – might as well build some T31 variants.

        • At around £100m, D. João II cost less than our OPVs, which have no hangar space, compared to the 2 flight hangars of the Portuguese ship (one for a helicopter and one for UAVs). The Rivers can carry 2 containers while maintaining the flight deck. D. João II can carry 18 containers or 18 vehicles, 4 speedboats, 100 marines and 40 specialists compared to the Rivers’ 2 RIBs and 50 marines. The Portuguese ship can also use the lower deck space to accommodate a further 200 marines instead of vehicles. With a stern ramp, side-launched ROVs, 94m runway and the helicopter fight deck, it just doesn’t feel right to me to call its capacity “limited”.

          It has a good advertised endurance, 45 days. On the downside, it’s slow at 15 knots max, and I doubt it has the level of structural protection of the RB2s, which were upgraded over the RB1 design. All in all, I think it’s a bit of a bargain.

        • Hi M8, This is actually one of the most sensible about turns going if it actually pans out, though I suspect the eventual outcome will not please some folks(and lot on UKDJ).
          Facts are Facts and our biggest issue with UK defence is we have far more Needs than the budget can stretch too, and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change much so we may just get on with and try to what we need but at a far lesser cost point where we can.
          A Capability FACT is the Bays are the most flexible, high availability cheapest bang for bucks ships we have purchased in decades, but the U.K. build process was a semi fiasco due to SH underbidding, massive cost increases and then trying to hold MOD to ransom (that didn’t end well).
          A UK MOD spending FACT virtually no project ever delivers on time or on budget so going for one that involves another Government that has a habit of getting it right is probably a good idea.
          Spooky thing is the Bays are a version of the previous version of the Damen Enforcer and this is either a newer version or their MPSS design so pretty well ideal for what we need and we know they work.
          Now for the unpleasant FACT the costs for the Dutch ships per unit are very low compared to just about anyone else and that is because Damen build them in Romania where labour costs are far lower. They then ship them to Rotterdam for final outfitting and trials. Spookily it’s virtually the same system as MOD used to buy the 4 Tide class RFAs and that is one is a bit of a peculiarity as it came in overall on time and under budget.
          So my guess is we will make a joint OTS purchase to again lower costs. It makes complete sense when you consider that the U.K. and Dutch Marines are supposed to reinforce Norway together.
          I suspect if they do this there will be hell to pay by a lot of folks on here but it saves money for other things we also need. So tough !
          Anyway we may find out on Tuesday 🥹

          • Hi mate.
            Thanks for that. I’ve no issue with building abroad, I was happy the Tides were built in S Korea, so, press on there.
            I’d not be impressed with some sort of timeshare of assets, though, just a joint build.

          • And we know the whole Romanian shipwreck has turned into a nightmare for Damen and the Dutch government is now feeding Damen hundreds millions to keep it alive, the Romanians are accusing Damen of stealing vast amounts of money from the Romanian yard, Damen are being prosecuted by the Dutch government for a ton of shady immoral and illegal acts including supplying Russia with war materials and if found guilty may loss all Dutch government contracts, the Germans have just killed their frigate contract with Damen.. its fully screwed.

          • Any Labour Government buying foreign built warships (and if they are to be used in contested environments as front line vessels they need to be) is committing political suicide so that’s a non starter and not all is well as Jonathan has pointed out with the Damen arrangement but what sounds more likely is a shared design that is perhaps bigger than the Dutch requirement but smaller than the original RN ideas.
            A Bay MK2 but perhaps more akin to a simple LHD and we should perhaps remember the predecessors to the Albions were 160m long and 12,000t full load so quite a bit smaller. They served the RN well for almost 40 years.

            • A thought provoking reminder: Harland and Wolff, John Brown, English Electric turbines and Bofors 40mm. Maybe we should dust off the blueprints.

            • We now have three very recently modernized UK yards with a high level of indoor robotic fabrication, and even things like robot painting. With these investments substantially reducing manual labour input, I’d like to think that the UK could be competitive, even against much lower cost countries. And there are big cost advantages to progressing outfit in tandem with block assembly, as opposed to sequentially i.e. by doing a UK fit out to an offshore assembled hull.

    • Raiding is the reality – RM can deploy TWO companies max to do crunchy stuff – that’s it, that’s your lot.

      • Probably enough for Grey Zone, which is why I questioned the bigger type proposed.
        Though as said the bigger Bays are so useful for other roles as well, and if they have a through deck can land RM by air as well.

    • They are not necessarily going to be that large, the biggest enforce design is 18,000(t) and the smaller ones go down to 8,000.

      I’m ok with 6 smaller designs or three larger ones.

      If we can get CAMM into a PODS sets up on the deck and equip them with a 40mm and Phalanx, all non deck penetrating and swappable then I think they are survivable enough.

      We don’t need £1.5 billion LPD’s with 64 VLS which is what MRSS seemed to descend into. Honestly I’m not convinced we can just convert RORO ferries for the job.

      Above everything they need to reflect long range helicopter insertion. The Dutch have some smart designs and Babcock are good at working in these multi programs so I’m not concerned, this is a good move.

      • Some really good points Jim.
        Six smaller designs would work well as two would always be active for LRG south and LRG north if thats still a thing. They could be utilised for drones when not in use with RM in a similar way to how we are deploying a bay class to Hormuz for MCM work. Having six would give us a sufficient amount of ships to offset the smaller capacity by banding them together for a amphibious task group rather than a LRG.

      • The most important question is are these vessels going to be built to full warship or to a lesser merchant ship standard because there is a significant cost difference. You are right that you can add the armament to anything but that does not make it survivable or a front line vessel and would any sane person really put some of the finest amphibious troops on the planet in a converted RoRo ferry for front line Ops.
        I tend to think that something in the 18,000 to 22,000t bracket is about right and whilst I think an LHD type vessel is the answer I see this type of vessel being a multi role ship that could take large drones to sea for the Atlantic Bastion concept as much as for amphibious, logistic, MCM or humanitarian taskings.
        A frigate sized strike ship will be an expensive compromise inadequate for all but small amphibious ops possibly carrying a couple of the proposed CIC and you could put 10 of them together and they wouldn’t have the lift or logistical capability of an ATG.
        Budget is obviously the challenge so why not 3 or 4 new Bays (The Dutch are obviously familiar with these) and 2 or 3 new simple multi role LHDs (I would genuinely like not to use that term because it implies large scale amphibious warfare, which is not helpful so someone needs to come up with a better description of this multi role drone carrying vessel that requires a well deck).

        • The Dutch has always been clear what they want, 6 ships that are smaller than their present LPDs… so sub 12,500 tons and mo more than 150meters.. but able to undertake and survive high intensity warfare.. and foe that marker they have said they need to better protected and armed than the Holland class OPV ( which is really a patrol frigate). So on the Dutch side these are small and well armed littoral control ships… well able to defend themselves.

          • Could design it as a family group like AEGIR or Enforcer, mostly shared parts between the various versions, slight changes for plug section inserts. That way the Dutch can have a smaller ship whilst we have a larger one and both are still similar enough to be a shared project with shared costs for the most part.

  6. Seems like a good idea BUT if the future commando force is weighted towards the “high North” why do we need assault ships? Where are they supposed to be used? The only place is Norway surely and we don’t need assault ships for that. MRSS seems a better option.

    • Same reason we needed HMS Ocean back in the day, there ain’t no basing up there and tonnes of water. Sea basing makes sense in the high north and it opens up a massive flank against the rapists meaning they have to guard the cost all the way to Murmansk less we pull a Copenhagen 2.0 and jump in and grab their fleet.

  10. More smoke and mirrors from the Government. There will be no type 83 or type 32. Is this true modernisation or dressed up cuts.

    • Was there ever a Type 32 outside of Johnson running his mouth? I mean was there an actual budget line for it, a development team?

      • I really couldn’t care about the 32. As you said anything that came out of Johnson’s mouth should be taken with a shovel of salt. But the 83 is a much needed vessel. Admittedly due to the type 45 being tied up the majority of their services lives the hulls are low mileage for their age.
        So how is a drone going to do the job of an Air Defence vessel. Are these going to be operated just as magazines with the brain in the aircraft carrier. I can see our enemies putting a lot of effort into jamming the data link or even taking the vessel over.
        I should stop sending my blood pressure sky high over the way defence is treated in this country and accept we are an utter joke.
        If the political class are happy to be in the embarrassing state, why should I worry!

        • Nah. Will stay at 19, when we get there.
          The 19 will be joined by LUSV.
          I remain to be convinced of their ability considering that I don’t think anyone’s tested one in the GIUK gap for a 2 month mission yet?

          • Intrested to see how you see us get to 19 …
            We barely have the sailors for half a dozen…! And that’s without any Assault and only a few Submarines..
            And whose going to Manage all these Drones there talking About…?

            • Well, there were 19 before, so why not, over time, and if recruitment continues to improve.
              Plus I understand newer vessels have fewer crew.
              If HMG were serious about defence, I’d also hope to see a 500 uplift for the RN, 1k for the RAF, and a few thousand for missing Army CS and CSS.
              But, they’re not, until they’re sorely needed and it’s too late.

            • By the way, your positivity is infectious!.Is there anything positive ever for you regards the military?

              • If you feel positive after the last 20yrs, good for you..!
                But Wishful positive thinking still doesn’t get the Navy back to 19.. ! Realistically if we get back to 13 I think that’s a Positive… Don’t think the Current Goverment has a target in mind above that..

        • The surface fleet is 19 as essentially that’s already costed in and mostly built.. but sadly we will not see those 5 type 32s.

          • People should Consider and Reflect on the Out of Service Dates of the 6 T45 when mentioning a 19 Vessel Navy…! Its 2035- 2038…!!!!

            • The reality is the T45s will only just start their update to aster 30 NT for just after 2032.. they are vessels that can easily be kept running into their mid 30s.. the hull plating on a type 45 is a hell of lot thicker than on a type 23.. they did not thank goodness make the same mistake they did with the T23s, so we will have the T45s until the mid 2040s.

          • I’d be happy with three more Type 31;for a class of eight. Id bin the Pacific fantasy fleet and leave it o the Aussie’s and NZ plus Malaysia and Singapore too. We can always push stuff down there if it kicks off abd if they need us and use the excellent base facilities we have down there. For me the T31 deployment should be Oman x 2 , Gib x 2 to cover the Med and surge to Gulf when required and 4 x Portsmouth for rotation and reserve. Leave the River Batch 2 to cover APT (S,) and APT(N) counter narcotics etc if you must. All the rest , all T26 , all T45 should support CSG, the Atlantic obviously and high North plus cover Greenland just in case Trump decides to make good his threat.

    • if the decision to not order more t31s or replacement for T45 is true then the DIP is a car crash and Healey was right to resign.

    • If you’ve read that “leaked report” on DIP on SM it’s a non story, T45 was always likely to get pushed to the right.
      T32, did it ever exist beyond a concept?
      It also claimed that F35A is confirmed which is actually an easy cut to make. Number is negligible, money going on GCAP, makes two small fleets adding to sustainment costs which nullifies the “F35A is cheaper” argument according to a GAO report.

      • I agree, moving T83 to the right is the best thing to free up budget. Once GCAP and AUKUS are out of the way funds will free up. Also signing up to build some 10,000(t) destroyer now when no one knows what the future will bring is daft. We can upgrade the radars of T45 with gallium nitride based on the new panels BAE is developing and we can knock out some cheap type 91 to supplement them using the same radar and mk41 VLS. T45 has years left in it and if we find that LEO satellite radar replaces AWACS we may find the best solution to fleet air defence is a dozen T91 networked together with maybe a single ship in the formation carrying a ballistic search radar. If you look at the size of most ABM radars they don’t need a 10,000(t) Gucci Class cruiser to carry them. It’s also worth noting that MRSS does not need to be survivable if you have a dozen Type 91’s in the fleet. Suddenly every platform can have its own ABM and AAW capability without spending a billion putting CAMM and heavy Radar on an LPD.

        BAE already have a pretty solid design for T91 so if the Clyde needs more work then give them T91 while Rosyth works on MRSS and H&W moves on to Point class replacements and then tides. That will keep all three yards open well into the 2040’s Rosyth can also probably concurrently build the three multi role mine vessels we are developing with Norway.

        All three yards are probably going to have to do SSN work as well to hit the schedules for AUKUS and the USA’s SSN (x) as UK yards are the only ones that can build US submarine parts.

        • Nobody gives a kippers dick whether you agree with anything, ashole. You know nothing about anything, where did you copy and paste this crap from? Some of the T45 destroyers havent been to sea for years and by now have seriously degraded. How about you try and reseach some facts before you post what comes into your drug crazed brain first?

        • From everything I have seen BAEs only type 91 plan is an updated Tridon however has some odd decisions like a Mk.41 layout that does not exist and hand waving over damage control by just saying that will be dealt with through automation but not actually giving any information about how it will be done.

        • Saw commentary on it on SM defence correspondents.
          The article referenced was in the Times, which is paywalled.
          I’d not put much stock in these leaks on the Dips contents, which is said to be out on Tuesday.
          Jarvis is said to have got a billion extra so there’s your headline dressed up by HMG as a major win, even though it’s way less than the 28 wanted and less than the 18 that was the minimum Healey would accept to work with.

  11. If the Dutch have committed to 6 already, what is the chances this could be a similar deal to the Norway T26 deal at BAE?
    Could we take 2 of the 6 and ” up to 6″ MRSS becomes 4?

    • I don’t think that is the Norwegian deal with the T26. The RN is still expected to get 8 x T26, just later than they would have. Where the parallel may well be apt is the delay to the Rotterdam replacements for the Dutch, in the same way we are getting delayed replacements for the T23s.

      I’d be very happy if we took 3 of these designs and 3 large MRSS (30,000t); However, I get the feeling this will be instead of the big MRSS the Navy wants.

  13. I wonder if it is yet another concept/idea to bander and talk large about but actually do nothing. I mean how long have we been talking MRSS and gone absolutely nowhere with it? One thing that keeps running through my mind as well, who exactly are we anticipated to raid? An amphibious capability I see. Go in, evacuate people, get out, humanity crises, scenarios like that, but who are we going to raid? Just seems like an excuse to get rid of the previous ships and reduce the size of the RM to me.

    • Lots of Concepts and ideas, Drones etc , All being Exhaustively Evaluated and considered its all very familiar soundings over the last few years..!.. Nothing really being ordered or money spent… perhaps even the Opposite….

  14. Looks like this going to be the good news part of DIP for the RN. But I cant see how the long promised £500m for the Future Commando Force can possibly enough for three amphib ships another many other things. Of course what is keeping the Admirals awake at night is the fate of the £6+ bn T83/FADS programme. The bean counters are arguing that the Ukraine War proves that the era of large, expensive, crewed warships is over, and that they are just juicy targets for small, cheap, unmanned vehicles. SDR2026 and Healey thought that we actually need a mixed of both, but it’s speculated that Jarvis may have bought in to the theory and will cancel T83 – which conveniently removes a large chunk of the DIP’s budgetary shortfall. With T32 dead, there is a real that chance that the Babcock Rosyth and the BAE Clyde shipyards will be in wind down to closure mode by the early and mid 2030’s respectively. A dozen 1000 tonnes optionally manned Type 92 sloops aren’t going to fill the gap, also the RN wants them quickly so the likes of Damen must have a serious chance of winning the order.

    • It’s only a ten year equipment plan so it’s not really cancelling the T83 just moving it to the right. But buying Gucci cruisers for probably £10 billion seems like a waste of money to me. Larger number of smaller optionally manned T91 sloops with a combination of airborne and satellite based radar supplementing the gallium nitride radars on the T91 is probably the best solution post 2040. T45 can easily go until then with a few upgrades and radar panel replacement.

      The only issue is ABM radar but i am yet to be convinced we need a 10,000(t) cruiser for ABM work and if there is just one or two in a fleet they are easily overwhelmed. There was serious consideration for an upward facing AESA panel on T45 so something similar maybe a modified T91 can probably also be done. A task force guarded by twelve T91’s each armed with 16 MK41 would be a formidable force to over come and all for the same price as one big fat T83.

      We save more money else where as well as it’s easy to parcel off then T91 with the amphibious ships so MRSS doesn’t need inbuilt missiles and the manned reduction means we can afford dozens of them. It’s optionally manned with twin 40mm so they can also be used for policing roles in UK waters or the Gulf but with a small crew.

      They are small enough to be knocked out in a dozen UK yards and possibly to more than one design.

      This is what the navy is going to look like in twenty years, we need to get use to it.

      • I’ll ask, where are those airborne systems operated from, not everywhere has a CSG nor in range of our 3 E-7.

        As for sticking a big powerful radar on the Type 91, that now makes it expensive sort of defeating the point of it.

        The 10,000 cruiser idea is there so make the ship survivable enough you won’t be losing expensive radars all over the place.

        As for 12 Type 91 being cheaper than a Type 83, how could that possible be the case if you’re giving all the Type 91 good BMD AESA radars. You’re now more tonnes, more engines more radars than a Type 83 all whilst each ship is built to lower DC standards.

        I’m not against Type 91, but there needs to be a good well defended ship at the centre to share data links otherwise we’re making the it far more expensive as a project for no real benefit if all the Type 91 have a radar.

        A CSG of the QEC, 2 Type 83, 1 Type 26, then 3 Type 91 and a Type 92 would be strong. Type 91s with 32 VLS and the Type 92 helping in ASW. That gives a potential for almost 400 VLS cells in a CSG, ability to mount a better radar than you ever could on a small ship. Much stronger than the 12×16 Type 91 plan.

        As for MRSS, I think split it, go for 3 Carlos sized LHD, and 3 updates Bay replacements. Some 40mm, maybe a Starstreak style CIWS but with a Carlos like LHD you can stick 6 F-35 on board for a much better defence than CAMM will ever give, but a peacetime escort of a Type 31 and Type 91 for the LHD is still very adequate and can be rapidly reinforced with a spare Type 83 or more Type 91.

    • Damen are an utter basket case at present and the Dutch have a list of 14 major combanants its needs Damen to build..

  15. Get 3 of these as drone ships/amphibious ships and 3 more type 31s modified for amphibious rading role is maybe the best we could hope for to try and get more frigates on a limited budget.

  16. I don’t know but I suspect they are replicating the Norway deal for different theatre’s and their contexts, doubles as a means for maintaining domestic (I hope) industry capacity and ability to scale up while sharing the cost.

    Strategically it means if/should we need to go it alone we can because we’d have maintained capability and capacity, also similar deal gives us strategic leverage with Europe in a way where they share in the costs and contribute. While also being part of any European Security focused body and influencing within too.

    Based purely on assumptions of – just wanted to offer an abstracted view

    There’s a lot more detail needed on this plan but the broader ideal of bi-lateral security agreements seem to be coming to bare or at least is interesting to me

    • None of those are impossible. I reckon exoskeletal legs such as Lockheed’s ONXY will come into play when new compact power sources become available, otherwise you’ll be using them at base. Probably better batteries rather than the nuclear-powered core of SF stories. I think the faff will make them for specialist units at first. Helmet-mounted IR laser targeting systems have been a thing for a while. Plasma rifles are shit, having no range. No self-respecting military would buy or issue them. As I recall, even the large plasma railgun experiments were just too energy hungry to make the cut (and probably didn’t have much range either).

  19. So we are replacing 6 ships with a POSSIBLE 6 ships shared between ourselves and the Netherlands, so at least a 50% reduction, looks exactly like the frigate fiasco where we went from 6 to 4 and now they are not going to build any destroyers, we may as well sell the carriers to Brazil for 20 million. This government blamed the Conservatives for hollowing out the armed forces, they are now decimating them. At this rate the true rate of defence spending will be 1%

    • I think you’re reading into this far too much. We have no detail at all, it could easily just be that it’s a common design between the RN and RNLN

  20. The RN dropped T83/FADS from the 2022 10 year plan, which was in surplus. In 2023, they included T83, T32, MRSS costs, which together with acceleration of DNE created a shortfall of @£29b.
    The DIP probably covers 10 years from 2025. So no major expenditure on T45 successor until 2035. Given the T26 build schedule, BAE would probably not be able to start work before then. For Babcock at Rosyth, much will depend on what the latest commitment to amphibious support vessels means. Although we parted company with the Dutch on a shared design, it seems that the large simple warships we once wanted may be replaced by something much smaller. The Dutch want to replace 2 classes of ship- the 2 Rotterdam and 4 frigate sized Holland patrol vessels.
    If T32 is gone and we are back to 19 surface escorts, a smaller flexible platform that could serve in an amphibious role and act as a frigate when needed might be our best option.

    • One interesting thing is the Dutch also want it to be more able to survive and fight in high intensity conflict than the Holland class.. and the Holland class were not under armed ( 76mm, 30mm and 2 light remote weapons stations ).. so we may be looking at a patrol frigate level of armaments..

  23. On reflection, there is actually an argument that the pauperised RN may have snatched victory from defeat by cannily combining two projects that were already moribund (Type 32) or on life support (MRSS) in to something that they could sell to the bean counters. Perhaps three projects if the MCM mothership role is in the mix.

    Although the Damen ATS design is officially for an Amphibious Transport Ship (Dock), it is really a multi-vessel suited for everything from OPV duties to special forces insertion. E.g. There is deck space forward for six 40ft ISO mission containers. Although the Damen CGI shows the large 150m long 15,000 tones ATS design concept costing about Euro 500 million a ship, consideration is also being given by the Netherlands to a smaller and much cheaper 120 m long 10,000 tonnes design similar to the new Portuguese ship the NRP D. João II – a final decision is expected next year.

    • The Dutch have specifically stated that the new vessels will be smaller than their Rotterdam class LPDs.. which are 12,500 tons and better able to fight and survive in high intensity conditions than the Holland class OPVs which have 2 medium guns ( 76mm super rapid and 30mm) as well as 2 remote light weapons stations. Essentially that gives the scope of the vessel.. well armed, 10,000ish tons.

      • Damen is plugging the larger ATS design for obvious reasons, but I suspect you are right in believing that RNLN and RN will ultimately prefer the smaller and cheaper variant. The UK and the RN effectively gave up on amphibious warfare in 2024. The LRG(North) is defunct in all but name, and as for LRG(South) – well the less said about RFA Argus and that whole penny pinching LSS fiasco the better. 40 Commando RM unfortunately spent three years preparing to forward deploy an augmented “strike company” to Oman, and it never even reached Brize Norton.

        • Yes if it’s a Damen design it will be the 120meter version, the Dutch don’t want big, it’s why they walked away from collaboration with the RN the first time around.

  24. To be honest I think the navy was always a bit “off on one” with a MRSS program of 6 20,000 to 30,000 assault ships because it neither had the crews or a purpose for them.

    For the high north it’s probably far more useful having the thing that the Dutch always planned for, a 150m ( essentially 10,000ton or less) general purpose littoral control type vessel.. for company level assaults and patrol and control using drones and rotors, but in high intensity conflict conditions.

    So look at what the Dutch has said about these ships as they replace 2 LPDs and 4 large patrol vessels.

    Modern amphibious doctrine calls for light, rapid and dispersed action, with light logistical support,” the ministry said.

    “The new generation of ships is therefore smaller in size than the current LPDs. This could, for example, lead to multiple Amphibious Transport Ships being deployed simultaneously.”

    “The OPVs, on the other hand, are not currently designed for tasks high on the violence spectrum. Due to the deteriorated international security situation, the navy needs ships that are suitable for war conditions.”

    So smaller than the Rotterdam class.. that’s sub 12,500 tons and a move from 166meters long to 150 meters .. so it’s going to be 6 sub 10,000 ton vessels

    But more able to survive and operate in the high violence spectrum than the 4, 3750 ton Holland class patrol ships.. now remember the Holland are very well armed for OPVs so a 76mm super rapid, 30 mm Marlin WS, 2 Oto Melara HITROLE, fully stabilised and remote systems with 12.5mm machine guns and 4 GPMGs..so it’s going to have more that that weapons wise.. more than 2 medium guns and 2 light remote systems..

    So we are essentially looking at a 10,000ish ton 150meter long amphibious/ littoral patrol drone vessel with the self defence of a patrol frigate.. which is where the navy was going in the first place when it paired up with the Dutch.. but somehow decided it was going to then build 6 20,000 -30,000 ton amphibious boxes.. but without any marine brigade or large crews to fill them.

    If this is what is happening a bit of sanity is prevalent…

    • On X, George has noted that the MoD have subtly changed the wording on the announcement.
      “Amphibious Transport Ship” is now “Amphibious Ship.”
      ?

  25. You also have to wonder if this is because Damen Shipyards Group are utterly and completely up shit creak without a paddle.. they are going down baby. The RNLN has to be aware that Damen are probably not capable of building what they are looking for on its own… the Dutch need Daman to build 4 ASW frigates, 4 air defence frigates as well design and build 6 new amphibious/littoral patrol vessels.. from a ship builder that cannot find its own arse at present. I wonder if this will lead to a wider strategic partnership.. after all in theory a T31 could do all three roles ? With Babcock do a rescue on the ever more incapable Damen.

    • Could be, Babcock has earned a top class reputation in working with yards across the world. If your taking the Damen basic designs which looked good and adding in Babcock expertise to get it off the ground it could be a winner. Indeed the CVF was not dissimilar to this with Thales doing the initial design.

      We should probably not have left the program in the first place.

  26. This is the first step in the Royal Navy effectively becoming a component of either a EU or European navy. A crying shame to be honest. As for the assault ship(s), I will believe them if they are ever built.

  27. So they’re going to cut the MRSS Again, say they’re going to build these then probably build 2 shared between holland and britain so neither nation can actually use them if we need them for a war.

    Can you see dutch marines heading to the falklands? Or if they wont then what happens if they get sunk there?

    It was breifly looking like we might have a decent navy.

  28. Whilst great for yards not so great for the naval architects and designers. It will most likely be a Damen design. Does it matter, well yes your design you spec the assemblies, hardward and components etc someone elses will favour other suppliers. IThe most important thing for politicians is what happens at the yards and that the steels British, the designers and supply chain are invisible to public so not of interest to the political class despite them being tge most valuable elements.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here