Fearless MRSS by Steller Systems
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2024
- Steller Systems unveiled today at Combined Naval Event (CNE) 2024 its Fearless-class, a hybrid UxV mothership / amphibious vessel, designed to answer the UK's Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) requirement.
=====================
Steller Systems’ Fearless Class is designed to provide capability as an uncrewed vehicle mothership, in order to give raiding support as well as being a landing ship, capable of delivering vehicles, personnel and equipment over large distances into the littoral.
Fearless provides 800 Lane Metres of space, accessed through hatches as well as a stern ramp capable of supporting vessels up to 20m in length and 30 tonnes in weight. This enables the embarkation Commando Insertion Craft, Uncrewed Surface and Submerged Vessels, Extra Large Autonomous Underwater Vehicles as well as Future All Terrain and other amphibious type vehicles.
Key Particulars:
LOA: 170m
LWL: 170m
Beam: 27m
Displacement: 15,500 Full
Range: 7000nm @ 18kts
Max Speed: 30+ knots
Benefits:
Highly efficient design
Cost-effective surface combatant
Mothership and landing ship
Designed to deliver full-spectrum capability
=====================
For new videos every week, subscribe here! ruclips.net/user/NavalNews?su...
Follow us on Twitter: / navalnewscom
Follow us on LinkedIn: / navalnews
Like us on Facebook: navalnewscom
Check out our daily naval defense news coverage at: www.navalnews.com/
NAVAL NEWS is fully focused on naval topics. We cover the latest naval defense shows & events. We also report on naval technology from all over the world. Navalnews.com is updated daily with in-depth features, industry, and naval forces news round-ups, event coverage, video reports and more. Our top of the line site is responsive across all mobile and desktop devices.
This is a really interesting and impressive looking ship, I like the idea of these having the ability to defend themselves and operate alone if need be.
The fact they are 15,000 tonnes and designed to operate at 30 knots is also insane.
Not having a well dock is also revolutionary.
The USN should consider this design for the USMC as well.
We suffer a lot from "not invented here" ... and our allies are both puissant and innovative. We should accept some of their designs with minimal change. VERY minimal - mostly using our own electronics fit out, potentially a different mast.
Not major changes like the Constellation has done to FREMM. I think we have so many changes to the FREMM design, we may as well have started from a clean sheet.
And what is this vessel for? I don’t know why you wouldn’t just build a proper amphibious ship and have a DDG as an escort
@@gamm8939the new USMC plan is for individual landing ships running around the 1st and 2nd island chains without escort.
Be very interesting to replace HMNZS Canterbury with a pair or trio of these.
@@gamm8939
I think that with drones being the new normal ... this is a look at what makes up a proper amphibious/landing ship now. This is what it will take to survive into a landing.
A single current Amphib puts too many souls, and too many capabilities, into a single target.
I think this will distribute the landing forces and provide greater protective firepower to help get them across the beach.
I have some concerns about the hull form below the waterline. It's the overall concept I am praising.
If we don't at least wargame this concept thoroughly it will be a disappointment.
@unknownuser069 I would have to agree. A single large amphibious vessel would be a missile and drone magnet. It would simply be too juicy of a target to ignore. A mission kill would deny that entire amphib force from participating in a landing operation, but a sinking would not only be a huge tactical victory while also a massive morale hit for the forces employing the amphibious ship.
Something like this would be able to carry a decent force while having the ability to defend it and its own amphibious component.
That propulsion system also caught my eye. Azimuths and normal shafts + contra rotating? Thats a very very interesting layout/system.
Looks good. Good that they're understanding the UAV threat and putting a lot of defenses on it. Outstanding speed.
Very Impressive indeed.
Nice to see a landing/troop carrier ship actually taking self defense seriously for once.
I hope the DDG(X) team is taking notes. This particular model might not be full of VLS cells to control costs, but at 15,500 tons, there is ample room for them. And the ability to spread company landing teams across the fleet would be an incredible boost to capability.
DDGX design is already selected
DDGX isn't being designed for commando raids though.
I can imagine that several smaller navies might want this type of vessel as a flagship and the largest in their fleet. Sent it and a frigate or LPV and you have all the capabilities you need.
Really ? 🤣
RNZN...
Impressive,best design I've seen for a while.
This looks brilliant
Reminds me of the Danish Absalon class
Agreed. Of which the Iver Huitfeld is derived. The new RN T31 is based on the Iver Huitfeld soooooo why dint the RN buy the Absalom as a T32 or this. Why reinvent the wheel?
@gregs7562 Because for one this is much larger and has more capacity, but also this is only a proposal for MRSS, not the final design
@@gregs7562Absalon class is significantly smaller. But yeah same concept, if not extended somewhat for water craft insertion.
Looks really cool
Like a christmas tree that the kids decorated.
That is top notch
Very interesting design
Everyone is afraid to say it, but this is a cruiser and the Royal Navy needs lots of them.
Not really a cruiser. 32 vls and a radar for self defense
Not at all.
@@admiralmallard7500 More totally new concept of cruiser. While older ones were big missile carriers, this one aims for more balanced combination of missiles and commando force. But would agree that more VLS would come nice.
I mean 32 is more than fine for what they're proposing, but as a major combatant it would need a ton of changes. Overall too ambitious for MRSS tho
As long as they can deploy RMC efficiantly at short notice with decent firepower. They can call it what they like. But im very much liking what im seeing. I wish we had these.
I like it.
Finally … 👏
Oh god, I hope not 🤣
We will have 8 of these for the Royal Navy please.
Tad optimistic, the Royal Navy only want 6
@@TypicalBritishperson4972So they will be lucky to get any. The Bean counters and incoming Labour Government will need the money to support all the Illegal immigrants coming in.
@@robertwillis4061 Yeah. Shapps has said at least 3 will be built
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 Maybe If the Conservatives get back in. If Labour do, probably not. Can't have Britain having an Navy that could challenge Putin.
How big will the NAAFI be on that thing?
Lovely model :) please make it in 1/72 please 🙏 please 🙏 please 🙏 please 🙏
That’s a very interesting design, is it bidding for the RN’s mrss contract?
Yes. That's in the title and description of the video and mentioned multiple times in the interview.
Great concept overall but undergunned for land assault. It needs more artillery firepower to prep any LZ for Marines and to suppress during the attack. I favor standardizing on 155mm. Also we need separate development of CLG guns (hypersonic hydrogen powered) capable of 100km range. But at the level of design, the bow needs to be lengthened to accommodate two main guns. Do that and ws could probably start with ten of them.
Best to wait until we see a firm spec from the MoD/RN/RM, and a spread of designs from a range of shipbuilders. Certainly though, I can see new types of vessels coming through, as motherships for air, surface, and underwater drones. The fact that we're adding in a requirement for some kind of amphib capability could either be a blessing, in terms of fostering real innovation, or a curse for the designers, trying to make the vessels "jacks of all trades". There's also the small matter of how to build them. I find it nigh-on impossible to believe a word that comes out of the current Tory government, but we're already building Type 26 and 31 frigates. They're still apparently committed to Type 32. Then there's the larger bear in the room called the Type 83 destroyer which, although it's still probably a way off, short of suffering Type 45 losses, I think many of us are surmising might be a very large vessel indeed. Now they're suggesting eight MRSS? Where do we build all these vessels? It's easy to say "re-open yard x, y, or z", but we're talking about huge investments right there, not to mention the requirement for skilled workers, people that you can't magic up overnight. At least the AUKUS project in Barrow seems to be attracting a big chunk of money from Australia. No such luxury for surface vessel projects.
Its quite big
Its a light cruiser
Not with a RoRo deck, a stern water-level ramp and 32 VLS (many of those short-length).
Others have compared it to the Danish Absalon class - it’s designed to insert beach head forces and support them more than anything.
Of course what many are forgetting is that the Danes are actually converting the Absalon to ASW frigates.
Destroyer transport?
At 15,000t it's more like a cruiser
@@HWC-ke5rk Obviously true. I was referencing the WWII destroyer transports as a similar concept.
Seems a tad small for a crew. Or is this just the model? lol
So frigate commando support UAV ship roled into, one, and new propulsion, this is the future, that probably be passed funded.
It's a cheaper and smaller version of the US San Antonio class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) built for the Navy and Marines for amphibious landings.
Fearless has better defenses for contested landings and much higher speed.
@@LoanwordEggcorn The Fearless MRSS is 170m length, 27m beam, and displacement 15,500 t and max speed 30+ knots. The San Antonio class LPD is 208m length, 32m beam, and displacement 25,300 t and max speed 22+ knots. The San Antonio class LPD costs over $1 Billion and has more offensive and defensive weapons then the Fearless MRSS.
@@reecom9884The San Antonios definitely do not have more defensive and offensive systems than this design. Only a couple RAM launchers and a few medium caliber guns.
@@reecom9884 Agree they can't be directly compared due to the size differences, etc. It depends on national policy, but I think a great argument can be made for having two smaller, faster ships for a likely lower price than one larger one. Fearless seems better armed against more numerous air threats such as drones from small to large. Again, it depends on what the goals are.
@@devonlord99 San Antonio LPD: 2× Bushmaster II close-in-guns, 2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers, 2 × 8 cell Mark 41 Vertical Launching System for quad-packed ESSMs, several twin M2 Browning machine gun turrets. Aircraft carried: Launch or land up to two MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft simultaneously with room to place four MV-22s on the flight deck and one in the hangar deck.
Why not just have a LHD
This has better defenses and speed.
4 x LHD and 4 x LSD(A) is the way to go.
@@robgazzard4432Isn’t the point of the MRSS programme to be one class of ships?
@TypicalBritishperson4972 as the saying goes, 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. So my suggestion is that we have different types of ships would be far better and would better suited to a wider range of missions and situations. LHD would provide significantly better helicopter capability (15 x small, medium and heavy as well as attack) and the dock would provide a further better ship to shore connectors for logistics (4 x fast LCU, see BMT design) as well as a mother ship for raiding (I.e. CB90 type). The LSD(A), evolving the already proven bay class design, but with a 57mm bofors at the stern, and hanger + maintain facilities for 4 medium or 2 large helicopters plus the Dock for ship to shore. Also no one else is going down this cul-de-sac route of MRSS, none of our peers in Japan, US, Australia, Turkey, France etc. Soon Egypt will have better amphibious capabilities than the UK! If you want to do 'raiding' properly, send the cash.⁸
@@robgazzard4432 Some countries are going down the route of an MRSS, including Malaysia whose programme shares the name. I do see your point but wonder if the increased capabilities for helicopters is necessary. You may think I am being deliberately obtuse, but I think raiding will consist mostly of small landing craft with some helicopter support, but not enough to warrant an LHD. However, I think I still do agree with you, only I would use the LHDs like Australia does- multi-role ships that accomplish mostly other things such as an anti-submarine warfare carrier
Still no way to reload VLS and Drones, while at sea! 🤦♂️
A half baked concept. 🤣 Try again boys. It's a christmas tree that the kids decorated.
They’ll never buy this and if they did they wouldn’t actually fit it with any weaponry . Just the potential to install, but save money by not actually doing it
Considering she doesn’t have the option of hiding off the coast in n the ocean like the carriers. She had better be armed to the teeth.
Looks rather spartan to me, the guns especially look inadequate. Only 8 VLS, were the accountants involved in this ship's design ???😂
This isn't a front line warship, it's rather impressive for an amphib proposal actually, better defended than most. Also its 40 vls on the design
They'll never spend the money on them, too expensive.
No well deck? Thats a major downgrade as all the other current RN ships do. Add one and slightly more deck space for vehicles. Strap some Adaptable Deck Launchers and this is a serious ship
Not nessary (we've already thrown two types of Littoral Ships away), stick with frigates.
they're still in reserve. it's just because there's a recruitment problem in the navy
Lol, UK can't build functioning aircraft carriers nor launch missiles from submarines. But this will grease the military industrial complex well.
Indonesia needs 6 destroyers by the end of this year, I don't know the most advanced destroyers from NATO... is there any coverage?