Anglo-Dutch Commando Force Ships - previously Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) - previously Future Littoral Strike Ship (FLSS)

Time for a name change again:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-support-ships-redesignated-as-multi-role-strike-ships/
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.

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

(The illustration is just filler.)

This is a significant clarification - MRSS is a Royal Navy class while most of the ships it will replace - the Argus and the Bay Class - are Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It also further distinguishes it from the Fleet Solid Support Ship and Multi-Role Ocean Support Ship programmes.

If this is more than pedantry and Whitehall paper-shuffling, it may indicate a focus in the design concept away from the sort of ship represented in, say BMT's Ellida, which looks more like an armed ferry (sorry), to (now defunct) Steller's Fearless, which looks more like a traditional offensive warship. However, it may still be nearer the 'ferry' or 'carrier' model with its offensive capability concentrated in vessels like BAE Systems' Littoral Strike Craft Concept.

https://www.navylookout.com/future-littoral-strike-enablers-being-developed-for-the-royal-navy/
 
https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...avy-details-mrss-requirements-and-challenges/
The UK Royal Navy (RN) has detailed the requirements for its future Multi-Role Strike Ship (MRSS), requirements underlining the platform’s importance in providing strike capability to support amphibious operations in littoral environments.


With the programme advancing from the concept phase into the assessment phase in 2026, programme officials speaking at the Combined Naval Event 2025 conference in Farnborough, UK in May set out core designs and capabilities for the planned six new ships that will support the naval service’s evolving approach to delivering amphibious effect ashore. These include: a well dock; longer-range insertion craft; a flight deck supported by a hangar; capacity (including via a mission bay) to operate as ‘drone carriers’ for maritime uncrewed systems (MUS); and being ‘fitted for but not with’ emerging capabilities like directed energy weapons (DEW). Options for installing a vertical launching system (VLS) will also be considered.

With its strike capability emphasis, MRSS is central in re-structuring the Royal Marines Commando force in transforming delivery of effect ashore from the sea in congested littoral regions that encompass key maritime choke points and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) threats.

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
https://www.navylookout.com/bmt-ann...pt-to-align-with-royal-navy-mrss-requirement/
A key theme of the Ellida Strike design is that it is conceived as a warship rather than an auxiliary. The ship is intended to operate at the high end of conflict as well as in benign environments, with the resilience and survivability expected of a combatant.

It is envisaged that the ship would be equipped with self-defence weapons in the form of 2 x Bofors 40mm Mk 4 cannons, 2 x DragonFire-type LDEW mounts and 2 x Ancilia airborne decoy launchers.

More unusually for an amphibious vessel, the ship will have an integrated mast with an advanced radar fit and a combat system. Ellida Strike could also serve as a distributed effector within the RN’s Future Air Dominance System (FADS) architecture. Capable of launching its missiles cued from external platforms or operating independently providing air defence for smaller task groups. Although cost and customer appetite will define the weapon fit and number of cells, the design has capacity for multiple strike-length Mk 41 VLS.
Click to expand...

The Ellida Strike concept highlights both the ambition and the dilemmas of the UK’s amphibious future. Technically, the design is feasible and thoroughly considered, drawing on operator feedback and deep naval architectural expertise. But the larger question remains whether there is the political will to properly fund expeditionary and littoral warfare at scale. It is even conceivable that the RN finds itself forced into a binary choice between funding either FADS/Type 83 or MRSS.
Click to expand...
 
Reuben James said:
https://www.navylookout.com/bmt-ann...pt-to-align-with-royal-navy-mrss-requirement/
Click to expand...

Only a concept to explore options, full requirements not yet published and so on, but this made me think:

It is even conceivable that the RN finds itself forced into a binary choice between funding either FADS/Type 83 or MRSS.

It's now evolved into a strike vessel, not just a support ship and the images show a missile pack forward. However, since drones feature heavily in RN plans, maybe it would operate with the Type 91 proposed as a part of FADS to complement the Type 83?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-wants-a-missile-carrying-drone-warship-the-type-91/
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC this class is intended for medium-intensity operations alone, which I have taken to mean "Red Sea during the Houthis major missile-fits."

I don't want to rely on having a USV next door for AA protection. So I think that the Ellida Strike concept is significantly under-armed.

I'm thinking 5" (or whatever the RN decides on for NGFS) on the bow, OTO 76mm port&starboard, SeaRAM port&starboard; then 4x ~30mm mounts, 2 aft on the corners of the transom and one on each bridge wing (ish). All of that can fit on an LSD.
Click to expand...

They seem to be drifting towards higher-intensity operations, with some offensive capabilities distributed to largish USVs. For air defence, they'd have a proper Type 83 and Type 91 but I was thinking that maybe the MRSS would have a '93A' loaded for land attack.

I certainly agree that the Ellida in all of its iterations is still under-armed. I'll shed another tear for Steller Systems.

BTW, there are a couple of Dragonfire directors shown - one on a dais protruding from the superstructure behind the missile pack and the other just aft of the starboard funnel.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the official requirements are when they're released.
 

The Damen Enforcer as Britain’s new strike ship – A good fit?​

My opinion: no.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-damen-enforcer-as-britains-new-strike-ship-a-good-fit/
Where the Enforcer does fall short is in survivability and self-defence. Current examples were built to auxiliary standards and fitted only for operations in permissive environments, with light defensive armament and limited combat hardening. By contrast, the MRSS will be expected to operate in contested littorals, which calls for stronger protection and more advanced defensive systems.

An Enforcer adapted for British use would need substantial upgrades, with decoy launchers, close-in weapons, and reserved space for missile cells, if it is to meet the Royal Navy’s higher standard of survivability.

Technical suitability alone does not determine feasibility, though. The UK’s National Shipbuilding Strategy mandates that major naval vessels be built in Britain by UK-led teams. The political backlash around foreign-led bids for the Fleet Solid Support programme underscores the sensitivity.
 
Brett Davidson (Rhino...) said:

The Damen Enforcer as Britain’s new strike ship – A good fit?​

My opinion: no.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-damen-enforcer-as-britains-new-strike-ship-a-good-fit/
Where the Enforcer does fall short is in survivability and self-defence. Current examples were built to auxiliary standards and fitted only for operations in permissive environments, with light defensive armament and limited combat hardening. By contrast, the MRSS will be expected to operate in contested littorals, which calls for stronger protection and more advanced defensive systems.

An Enforcer adapted for British use would need substantial upgrades, with decoy launchers, close-in weapons, and reserved space for missile cells, if it is to meet the Royal Navy’s higher standard of survivability.

Technical suitability alone does not determine feasibility, though. The UK’s National Shipbuilding Strategy mandates that major naval vessels be built in Britain by UK-led teams. The political backlash around foreign-led bids for the Fleet Solid Support programme underscores the sensitivity.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough there's been talk about this on a Dutch defense forum, and their conclusion was much the same.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm thinking 5" (or whatever the RN decides on for NGFS) on the bow, OTO 76mm port&starboard, SeaRAM port&starboard, (edit) Dragonfire/whatever DEWS port&starboard; then 4x ~30mm mounts, 2 aft on the corners of the transom and one on each bridge wing (ish). All of that can fit on an LSD.
Click to expand...
There's no point in designing a ship for over-the-horizon insertion and then insisting it should be armed for NGFS.
 
Funding problems are hitting the MoD with the Type 83 FADS likely to be delayed. The MRSS schedule is slipping but seems more urgent if your choice is between bad and terrible.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...stroyer-type-45-replacement.39228/post-891342
In happier news, the UK and Norway are moving ahead on the commando craft that will be deployed by MRSS.

https://www.navylookout.com/future-littoral-strike-enablers-being-developed-for-the-royal-navy/
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-and-norway-explore-joint-commando-craft-programme/
 

Attachments

  • RFI - JCC Official-Unclassified.pdf
    474.9 KB · Views: 21
More news related to MRSS, somewhat overshadowed by the termination of the Type 83.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-commits-to-new-assault-ships-in-joint-effort-with-dutch/

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 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.

Emphasis added. I assume that the answer is that is will likely replace the MRSS in its current form because I can't see both classes existing side by side in the same fleet.
 
From a few years back:

https://www.navylookout.com/multi-role-support-ships-the-future-of-royal-navy-amphibious-capability/

The UK and the Netherlands have formally announced they will explore opportunities to work together to purchase a new generation of amphibious warships. Here we look at the background and the options for this important programme.

Damen's Enforcer eventually lost out as a MRSS contender but if the RN plans to take a couple of steps back, a version of it may appear again for political reasons. I'm not sure that BMT or BAE would like that.

OTOH, if a British design goes ahead, the Dutch might be happy to have the UK enabling a bigger vessel than they might otherwise have been able to afford.

In either case, having a partner with shared interests might be an advantage, provided it's managed more like Tempest than FCAS/SCAF. Probably more the former, as the Dutch had proposed their design for what has become MRSS and the two are determined to work together politically.

Here's the Enforcer range:

https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-18028
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-16828
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-15628
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-14428
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-14426
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-13226
https://www.damen.com/vessels/defen...nforcers/landing-platform-dock-enforcer-12026
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Was going to say, aren't the UK and Dutch Royal Marines pretty tightly integrated?
Click to expand...
Yes, especially under the JEF framework.

The Brits and the Dutch have a military alliance structure often overlooked. It's very intertwined though, with the Dutch being the current providers of Perisher courses for conventional submarines, and often integrating with British carrier strike groups.
 
Reuben James said:
Yes, especially under the JEF framework.
Click to expand...
Then it'd be a very good idea to let the two design and buy the whole set of amphibs. If you need two sizes of amphibs maybe the UK designs them and the Dutch design the smaller ones, but both countries buy both classes. Let's assume that the Dutch make up 1/4 of the Royal Marine Commandoes. The UKRN would buy 3 ships and the Dutch 1. Or 6/2, 9/3, whatever the desired spread across the ships happens to be.

I'm talking designs so shared that all the markings are in both English and Dutch already. So if you had to you could share crews.
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...t-to-strengthen-nato-and-back-uk-shipbuilding

At 160 metres long and 15,000 tonnes, the ships will transport troops, vehicles and equipment including drones wherever they are needed. Their flight decks will be designed to operate current and future long-range drones and autonomous systems, supporting the Royal Navy’s transition to a hybrid Navy.
Click to expand...

Possibly referencing this variant of the Damen Enforcer LPD - https://medialibrary.damen.com/m/26.../product-sheet-lpd-enforcer-15628-16828ed.pdf

1783453740773.png



For those interested, Damen offers local construction and a 'We Buy Any Car'-style part-exchange option as well.

Screenshot 2026-07-07 204710.png
 
Last edited:
The ref design is a 76mm, a RAM, four decoy launchers and 2x30mm but I think it will be heavily customised and likely continue the trend of 57mm and 40mm guns.
 
Brett Davidson said:
Damen's Enforcer eventually lost out as a MRSS contender but if the RN plans to take a couple of steps back, a version of it may appear again for political reasons. I'm not sure that BMT or BAE would like that.
Click to expand...
*Cough* I didn't think that it was certain but I'm not very surprised.

Things are apparently happening fast, which I assume means that things have really been happening for a while.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-shipyards-to-build-new-amphibious-ships-in-huge-deal/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/navantia-pitches-belfast-to-build-uk-amphibious-ships/

And now the UK gets four, not the hoped-for six, but that's more or less compensated for by the close integration with the Netherlands.

https://www.navylookout.com/four-am...ilt-for-the-royal-navy-based-on-dutch-design/

The Enforcer 15628 is a modern design, although in a traditional-type Landing Platform Dock (LPD) arrangement with well deck and flight deck astern. The original Enforcer design formed the basis of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Bay-class landing ships as well as the Dutch Rotterdam-class and Spanish Galicia-class amphibious vessels. Damen unveiled the completely redesigned Enforcer family in 2023 with future UK and Dutch requirements in mind.

15628 is nominally 156 metres long and around 14,000 tonnes full-load displacement, significantly smaller than the 20,000 tonne Albion-class assault ships but offers a highly flexible platform optimised for the Future Commando Force concept. The baseline design accommodates a crew of around 150 together with between 430 and 560 embarked troops, depending on mission requirements. A 1,530 m² vehicle deck, floodable well dock, side RoRo access and two-spot flight deck allow troops, vehicles and supplies to be landed by both helicopter and landing craft. Diesel-electric propulsion provides an economical range of around 8,000 nautical miles at a maximum speed of 18 knots.

Now it's called the Amphibious Transport Ship / ATS. Time for another thread name change or a completely new thread? Depends on how much continuity there is, I suppose.
 
Looks like the mood music is that it won't be a Damen Enforcer, but an enlarged version of the flat-top that Damen are building for the Portuguese.
 
If we end up with four, this would be a major boon for HADR operations in South America. It could be paired with a B2 OPV for anti-smuggling operations as well.
 
Brett Davidson said:
*Cough* I didn't think that it was certain but I'm not very surprised.

Things are apparently happening fast, which I assume means that things have really been happening for a while.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-shipyards-to-build-new-amphibious-ships-in-huge-deal/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/navantia-pitches-belfast-to-build-uk-amphibious-ships/

And now the UK gets four, not the hoped-for six, but that's more or less compensated for by the close integration with the Netherlands.

https://www.navylookout.com/four-am...ilt-for-the-royal-navy-based-on-dutch-design/

The Enforcer 15628 is a modern design, although in a traditional-type Landing Platform Dock (LPD) arrangement with well deck and flight deck astern. The original Enforcer design formed the basis of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Bay-class landing ships as well as the Dutch Rotterdam-class and Spanish Galicia-class amphibious vessels. Damen unveiled the completely redesigned Enforcer family in 2023 with future UK and Dutch requirements in mind.

15628 is nominally 156 metres long and around 14,000 tonnes full-load displacement, significantly smaller than the 20,000 tonne Albion-class assault ships but offers a highly flexible platform optimised for the Future Commando Force concept. The baseline design accommodates a crew of around 150 together with between 430 and 560 embarked troops, depending on mission requirements. A 1,530 m² vehicle deck, floodable well dock, side RoRo access and two-spot flight deck allow troops, vehicles and supplies to be landed by both helicopter and landing craft. Diesel-electric propulsion provides an economical range of around 8,000 nautical miles at a maximum speed of 18 knots.

Now it's called the Amphibious Transport Ship / ATS. Time for another thread name change or a completely new thread? Depends on how much continuity there is, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I'm still not sure why something closer to the San Antonio class or Mistral class in size and capabilities hasn't been more popular. It's not like the extra steel is that much more expensive, and it would allow much more creative uncrewed mothership shenanigans, better HADR, and all the other advantages that come with a larger well deck, hangar, and more space for spare kit.
 
whatismoo said:
I'm still not sure why something closer to the San Antonio class or Mistral class in size and capabilities hasn't been more popular. It's not like the extra steel is that much more expensive, and it would allow much more creative uncrewed mothership shenanigans, better HADR, and all the other advantages that come with a larger well deck, hangar, and more space for spare kit.
Click to expand...
Big number make Treasury sad

Me think, why pay lot money buy ships, when little money buy same number ships
1783616539569.png

The Dutch are probably going to get their ships built at Galati and fitted out at Damen Schelde. The Galati yard can handle ships up to 200 m, which would be the same size as the Mistral class. The Dutch are planning to buy four ships (60k tons) to replace two smaller LPDs (27k tons), so the smaller LHD concept makes sense for them. The Royal Navy is supposed to be using these ships to replace six much larger ships (~125k tons). They would need six 180+ m LPDs just to match that tonnage, and 200+ m ships like the San Antonio-class or Karel Doorman to increase their tonnage. With these 15k ton ships, they would need 9 to match the tonnage they are replacing.

If it does turn out to be a small LHD, that would be unfortunate because ships like the NRP D. Joao II and the Mistrals are remarkably ugly because of how short and fat they are.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
Big number make Treasury sad

Me think, why pay lot money buy ships, when little money buy same number ships
View attachment 817411

The Dutch are probably going to get their ships built at Galati and fitted out at Damen Schelde. The Galati yard can handle ships up to 200 m, which would be the same size as the Mistral class. The Dutch are planning to buy four ships (60k tons) to replace two smaller LPDs (27k tons), so the smaller LHD concept makes sense for them. The Royal Navy is supposed to be using these ships to replace six much larger ships (~125k tons). They would need six 180+ m LPDs just to match that tonnage, and 200+ m ships like the San Antonio-class or Karel Doorman to increase their tonnage. With these 15k ton ships, they would need 9 to match the tonnage they are replacing.

If it does turn out to be a small LHD, that would be unfortunate because ships like the NRP D. Joao II and the Mistrals are remarkably ugly because of how short and fat they are.
Click to expand...
Yeah I mean it's just a baffling situation, especially because these are much more useful in the day to day things that a navy does in peacetime vs almost any other ship, AND they dovetail really well with all the hybrid tomfoolery.
 
Ron5 said:
Seems highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily; especially if it’s more like 8 hulls vs finished ships. Could easily be that the four Dutch units are towed for final assembly in country, as per most of the recent Dutch naval projects where the hulls were built at the Damen yard in Romania.
 
bobthemonkey said:
Not necessarily; especially if it’s more like 8 hulls vs finished ships. Could easily be that the four Dutch units are towed for final assembly in country, as per most of the recent Dutch naval projects where the hulls were built at the Damen yard in Romania.
Click to expand...
The problem is that British shipyards can’t match the Romanians for economics and on time delivery. Unless the UK is making an investment in Dutch systems that far outweighs the lesser productivity, higher wage scales and inevitable delivery delays, it makes zero sense for the 4 Dutch hulls to be built in the UK. Unless there’s a huge offset required for Dutch electronics, I can’t see the motivation? Damen construction at Galati has been remarkably unproblematic. Are these ships going to be remarkably well equipped in high value Thales radar systems for amphibious units?
 
It may be copium but I'm hoping this means that there will be 8 UK hukks buikt here in addition to other Dutch ones.
 
whatismoo said:
I think HMT has done more to destroy the RN than the Russians ever could, at this point. It's absurd.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, the make work nature of British shipbuilding is a matter of political policy and it’s up to the treasury to fund defense procurement as employment policy instead of on the basis of real national security. Treasury is only acting on the instructions of politicians acting on the basis of short term, and often local, electoral self interest. The RN only has a pair of aircraft carriers because the program funded several hundred apprenticeships in Gordon Brown’s own constituency. Defense procurement is determined by considerations that are so specific, local and unrelated to actual national security.

To put it another way, if HMT was truly in the driver’s seat and acting in the interest of financial efficiency, you wouldn’t see shipbuilding being revived in Belfast. As it is, the British taxpayers are funding 3 domestically build solid support ships to replace a single ship that went out of service because they couldn’t even crew one. And they will supposedly go into service, after 2031, or more likely mid decade, after a decades long capability gap…..with a probability that none of the new ships will ever be crewed in an era of shrinking recruitable demographics. You can’t blame the accountants when the politician view naval/auxiliary shipbuilding as a shoreside make work project.
 
Last edited:
"The baseline design accommodates a crew of around 150 together with between 430 and 560 embarked troops, depending on mission requirements. "

That's considerably more troops than the single strike company they were talking about MRSS carrying. Even augmented with support assets that was only supposed to be 250 troops.
 
DWG said:
That's considerably more troops than the single strike company they were talking about MRSS carrying. Even augmented with support assets that was only supposed to be 250 troops.
Click to expand...
Add a large joint command element, decent sized helicopter and UAV air group, USV detachment, SBS detachment, medical unit etc... I imagine you could quickly get to 400 personnel in order to cover the full spectrum of strike missions beyond the core LSU element from 3 commando brigade.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom