Work on ‘affordability’ of Multi-Role Support Ship ongoing

So these need to be able to support marines for long deployments, able to store and launch boats, aircraft and some vehicles. They need to have awareness of threats and hopefully some self defence capabilities as they may be working alone and in contested areas.
A frigate on the front and amphibious ship at the back.
Depending on how many there may be scope to have modules, like command module, extra storage module, hospital module, extra hanger module, missile module and so on. How that would actually work in practice is above my knowledge.

Can’t wait to see what they finally decide upon!
The BMT – ELLIDA option has plenty of space and will provide flexibility
I had a read of their 2019 PDF again

Let’s get it done …

Small LHD’s have long been the trend in foreign navies (France, Italy, South Korea, Australia, Spain, Egypt, Turkey, …) but don’t seem to be in the frame for MRSS. At a guess a full length flight deck would impose too many restrictions, also it would be badly underutilised as CHF has become so small that a deployment of just two Merlin HC.4’s now gets a MOD press release. HMS Albion in days of yore …

” to ensure affordability” Another smoke screen for “somewhere,sometime, someday, never?

BMT updated their ELLIDA concept in September 2023. The version shown in the article is out of date FYI

If there in service by early 2030’s I guess it’s going to rule out H&W building them as they will still be building FSSS. If H&W don’t get the contract then I can only see CL being able to build them.

I like the flexible idea of these ships & it is vital that Albion & Bulwark are replaced. One small point is the placement of the 20mm CIWS, with the rear gun having very limited angle of fire. A more logical placement would be on top of the bridge wings Port & Starboard.

Just before everyone goes yes let’s order x, y or z. BMT Elida is only one of the options and it is only a Concept with no previous track record.

Last year MOD signed an LOI with the Dutch to explore replacing our various LPD, LSD, Argus and the 2 Dutch LPD with a Littoral Strike Platform and the Dutch will no doubt put forward a developed version of their well proven Enforcer design.
Just remember that one of the RNs most reliable, cost effective and flexible ships are the Bays. And they are a large but basic version of the previous Enforcer iteration (as are the 4 LPD of them Dutch and Spanish Navy’s).

To MOD the idea of a joint project with the Dutch has a lot going for it. Shared development costs, supply chain and European cooperation (not EU) is a very hot political topic at present.

The other advantage is cost. The majority of the ships we wish to replace are RFA not RN (4 out of 6) and if we order all the replacements as RFA then they are not Warships so can be ordered abroad.

The Dutch have not actually built any warship in NL for decades now, and do get very good value. Damen build the hulls in their SB yard in Romania (cheap labour) and ship them back to Netherlands for outfitting which is where the high end value of the contract is spent.

I dare say that if a joint design is developed that is the option they will go for. And unless we are prepared to pay more for the same ships and hence get fewer then that may be a deal maker.

Add a Catapult and chuck a couple of floats on Vixen and Hey presto…….. you get a Seaplane carrier too.

Genius init !

Based on historical evidence, ‘affordability’ studies usually result in ships being too small and not 100% fit-for-purpose, be they warships or support vessels. The short-term thinking of politicians has no relationship to a ship that is expected to serve for 20 plus years (few, if any, politicians are capable of thinking beyond their next election). As usual, this will result in British armed forces being ill-equipped to deal effectively and efficiently with increasingly complex operational requirements.

Do like the look of this Design if they want this vessel to do what it says in the Article ,I would say a Displacement of a round 18-20 thousand tonnes .But if so for God’s sake Armand it .Message for the government it call going on combat operations 🙄 🇬🇧

Great looking and very versatile ship. Sorry for being picky but can I just say this, IMHO they’ll need to seriously fix the rear facing Phalanx between those exhaust stacks. There’s a very constricted firing arc. Extend the flyco deck out to increase this and so that they can clearly view all the flight deck and or push the exhaust stacks forward. Like to see containerised CAMM on these and all other RFA ships as well.

I would love to see at least 12 of these class of ships come to fruition, roundtable class would be something to call the class like the old rfa ships used in the Falklands, support British jobs,create more jobs in the rfa ,but the useless incumbent government will be gone soon,only now do these tory idiots realise that the damage they have done to our armed forces has helped people like putin and his ilk rubbing his hands at the fxxxxxxg arseholes stupidity,

I am concerned that they are going for a design with limited flight deck space. We know that supporting landings will increasingly involve drones. Many of those will need space to launch and recover. Would they be better thinking of a thru-deck design of some sort to allow a wider range of flight operations. We have no idea what might be needed ten years from now and we might regret limiting options for flying drones off them

Any idea of placing 20′ containers on deck has one simple flaw, namely the RFA has not had a reliable crane able to sustain foul weather conditions for years. The Bay class is OK but Tide Class cranes are awful. The crane is integratal to this concept working as designed so please ensure a maritime crane able to handle full 20′ containers and ammunition and not made by Pelligrini!

Affordability? Just pass them off as ppe, covid measures or to help banks out. How many hundreds of billions pissed away on lies then back to the old affordability and value to the taxpayer bullshit. Come on! How much value came from bailing out banks? How much value from stopping people to go work over a cough and ppe for certain people in places to not make, but grab tax payers money. How much value in building albeit a warlike product but still important for the defence of and interests of our Country. A real product made by British people who pay massive taxes, but also must invest in facilities and people for skills in similar type of projects in the further instead of relying on outsourcing and losing our wealth. Wealth is land, labour and capital, but not abroad especially for taxpayer funded projects that we are so capable in. Penny wise pound foolish. When people realise that voting for liblabconsnpgreenplaid is declining and bad for us and the Country and only for their virtual signalling, then maybe we will advance. Vote labour, just like tories, is carrying on this woke civil service and bowing to wef, who, un and aligning to eu empire etc crap!

They should be fitted with Sea Ceptor with a suitable Ops Rm just as the Fearless class was before them, I suspect these would come in handy given the world they will operate in.

Numbers wise, as previously posts in similar threads, 8 should be the absolute minimum, while 12 would provide flexibility and the ability to scale a suitable force to maximise the amphibious capability, and conduct multiple concurrent peacetime missions (scrapping the stupid poor mans operate one layup the other model). Of course this probably won’t happen, and 4-5 will most likely be ordered. Pity.

I’m intrigued by the numbers being bandied about here… eight… ten… twelve …!

The only amphibious forces we have are two reduced-size RM Commandos tasked with light raids on an enemy coastline.

There are no army infantry battalions spare to play the amphibious assault role. We are down to 30 battalions now, 12 of them at half strength and they are already over committed.

Should it be necessary to deploy an armoured infantry brigade by sea, then the Points will carry the bulk of the vehicles and equipment.

A couple of Albion replacements would be most useful, but there again how likely is it that we will be sending a combat brigade overseas when we are down to just 4 deployable brigades, three of them earmarked for NATO Europe?

It seems to me that there are two separate requirements here, (a) a smaller LSD or LPHD for the two littoral response groups, so two ships and one in reserve, as per the Bays, and (b) a larger amphibious assault ship capable of a larger sealift of troops and equipment – however unlikely it is that we will have the land forces to deploy in this way in the future. So perhaps direct replacements for Albion and Bulwark. There certainly aren’t the escorts for any of these amphibians and I doubt there is the budget either. If we manage to get 5 replacement ships I would see that ad a pretty good result.

A genuine question… When it comes to military ‘kit’ & equipment, does necessity ever outweigh affordability?