Future Solid Support Ship

[Repulse]

If there are only 2 x SSS then there can only be 1 x actives CSG!

Operating purely as a RN CSG outside of the North Atlantic, then yes. But I think the FSS will only be one of the limiting factors...

[Scimitar54]

Of course, but this thread is about the future SSS and dependant on the numbers of these ships will determine the number of Carriers that can be supported and for how long. Numbers of Escorts and Aircraft may or may not affect deployment, but they do not need to affect support!

[dmereifield]

Then, mothballing PoW will come up as a "good alternative", I'm afraid.

Don’t agree with this - keeping both carriers active is a must, and I do not see the need for a FSS in all roles. Would say that in a ASW role for example in the North Atlantic (9 ASW Merlins, 9 CAP F35Bs and 4 AEW Merlins) a Tide would be sufficient.

This is true, I agree. But, this simply means, SSS is not in hurry and maybe not even needed. QLNZ and PoW themselves has large arsenal. And if they gut food and fuel, they can operate until their arsenal/magazines get empty.

I'm afraid this is exactly what French navy is doing.

Then, quite serious question rises.

Do RN need SSS?

I think they do, and I think two is MUST. So, it will either go to Spain (or other country), or to "Spain" (using H&W dock) with a little number of local engineer with little future, or shall be postponed until late 2020s. This is what I meat.

There's no chance of it being built outside the UK

[Lord Jim]

I have always thought the reason behind needing two carriers was so that one would be operational and one undergoing maintenance and/or refit. The RN has never intended to operate both carriers at the same time but rather continuously maintain a Carrier Strike capability. The same goes for the FSS, to have one available to support the operational carrier you need two. However if, in order to save money the RN decides it can reduce the readiness level of the non operational carrier then maybe we could get away with one FSS and keep Fort Victoria going as a stand in when required.

It appear the sacrifices the RN has and is making to obtain its treasured new Carrier Strike capability are far from over.

[RichardIC]

I have always thought the reason behind needing two carriers was so that one would be operational and one undergoing maintenance and/or refit.

That's just not correct I'm afraid.

since November 2015, the government’s policy requirement has
been for two carriers at high or very high readiness.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... oyment.pdf

Hence the need for a minimum two FSSS.

[Scimitar54]

RichardIC Quoted:-

“since November 2015, the government’s policy requirement has
been for two carriers at high or very high readiness.

You need at least three, or probably even four for that!

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across...

I think we can have ago at cost right now the RFA has 4 x Tide class , 2 x Wave class , Fort Vic , Argus and 3 x Bay class

If the RFA was to move to 5 x Tide class , 3 x SSS and 4 x new Enforcer we could wrap that up for about 3 billion or 250 million over 12 years

I suspect a more likely outcome is that the upcoming review will recommend selling the Waves, mothball Albion and Bulwark, maintain the Bays, Tides and Fort Victoria and procure two SSS and a couple of cheap commercially derived Argus type replacements (without the lift and with much reduced hospital facilities). A vague commitment to build a couple of LPH's or LHD's in the 2030's to silence the critics is also highly likely IMO.

Hopefully I'm wrong and HMG commits to fund a much more ambitious and genuinely forward looking fleet.

[Repulse]

Anything is possible, but I think keeping RFA Fort Victoria and dropping at least one Wave is as close to a given as it gets.

[donald_of_tokyo]

From Fort Rosalie thread ...

I would say it time to commit to a replacement even if we said 500 million per ship and put it out to tender to see what we could get these ships should be around for 40 plus years

The replacements need to fit into a balanced fleet regardless of cost. Until the LSG concept is finalised, funded and backed up by firm commitments from HMG its difficult to establish what the optimum balance of the fleet might be. The future of the UK's Amphibious capability remains the big unknown together with the RFA vessels to support the capability and until decisions are made the cost going forward is unquantifiable.

One thing is for sure, if the UK's ability to operate the CSG depends on 2 or 3 SSS vessels they will rapidly become the highest value targets in any conflict. Sorting out RN's strength in depth must be a top priority in any upcoming review.

I hear what you are saying however if we can't get 3 SSS for 1.5 billion capable of fully supporting the carriers it will be a very poor show. And for me the tender should go out to UK yards first and if they can't come up with the goods then it should go out to international tender but it should stay a fixed price contract

Waiting for review means gapping = going on with the sole Fort Victoria.

It will take at least 1.5 (for review) + 1.5 (for proposal and selection) + X years (for build). If built abroad, X is typically 4 years (3 years build, and 1 year in UK for fitting out). If built in UK, it will be 4-5 years (because it must start from rebuilding the infrastructure). In total, it means either 2027 or 2028 for the first hull at best.

I think what RN shall do now is to
- reduce the requirement. Say, from 7000m3 --> 5000m3
- Order now, first hull from abroad, 2nd hull in UK, and optional 3rd hull in UK.
- Get the 1st hull by 2025. 2nd-hull, UK-built, in 2028 (to replace Fort Victoria).
- the 3rd hull requirement will be defined by the review.

My point is
- If budget is not enough, just reduce the requirement.
- anyway two SSS is must, regardless of the review.
- accept claim in future "must have been built more larger". Gapping is terrible and 30% capability loss will never be.
- No well dock, no big aviation capability. If you want to support amphibious logistics, just add a smallish steal beach, at most.

Actually, I am very much afraid, MOD maybe looking at French CVTF approach. Not having big SSS, and rely on CV's own munitions stores for CVTF strike. Actually, this is the escorts strategy (VLS can be reloaded only at port). Good punch for several days, but not for months. The idea completely matches with Elidda concept, especially if it is coupled with LSG concept.

But, for me, LSG issue has nothing related to SSS, at least the first two SSS. Yet MOD says "waiting for review". I am afraid it might be showing the way to abandon SSS concept to make it Elidda like chimera ship.

-----------------------------------------
PS I don't like chimera ships. It is like adding a dump-body at the back half of a bus. Great it can carry many person (but much less than a specialist bus), and sands (but much less than the specialist dump car). And when used in either purpose, the other part is just a dead weight, putting burden on the engine and maintenance = high cost.

Landing, even if it is in logistic landing phase, need the ship near shore. At least 2 SSS must be in blue water to support CV. Yes, sometimes SSS get near shore for logistic support, but in such a safe condition, Point class or any merchant RoRo ship can do much more cheaper and efficient. Chimera type concept comes if only after (at least) two SSS are there. With current UK military budget condition, this means for me, SSS is unrelated to LSG.

[Repulse]

Moved form Fort Rosalie thread

donald_of_tokyo, good points and I do not profess to know all of the answers. Basic facts are that if the carrier is half full (v.likely for most peacetime operations), then supplies/munitions will last twice at least twice as long. Also, with carrier capable support bases in Gibraltar, Oman and Singapore (as well as allied nations like the USA) then the need is less. Lastly, I assume the USN support ships are compatible?

As such, a typical CSG that includes a Tide Class plus RFA Fort Victoria (when EoS) should be okay in normal times.

Given the limited funds, whilst tempting I’d say a pure SSS is not the way forward.

No well dock, no big aviation capability

Disagree, if we are going to buy, I’d say build one (or even two if funds are available) Joint Support Ships that are capable of not only CSG support, but also act day-to-day as part of the LRG and also as an Aviation Support Ship (with 4-6 Helicopters). Agree no well deck (but yes to a steel beach) but not having a “large” aviation capacity would be wrong as there is a need to support limited operations away from the carriers, and also would limit future VERTREP options.

These JSSs cannot be LPD replacements, that would increase costs and complexity to a point where they are unaffordable; which is possibly what happened. My view, keep the LPDs and pair them with JSSs during “peacetime” for the LRGs - keep the LSDs for Army Logistics and a MCM mothership in the Gulf.


This would leave the RFA with realistically the following:
- 4 Tide Class Tankers
- RFA Fort Victoria
- 2 Joint Support Ships
- 3 Bay Class LSDs

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks, Repulse-san.

As such, a typical CSG that includes a Tide Class plus RFA Fort Victoria (when EoS) should be okay in normal times.

Yes, but to do this, we need at least two SSS, not only Fort Victoria.

Given the limited funds, whilst tempting I’d say a pure SSS is not the way forward.

Interesting. For me, given the limited funds, I’d say a Joint Support Ships is NOT the way forward.

The same condition/understanding, and different conclusion. Interesting.

...I’d say build one (or even two if funds are available) Joint Support Ships that are capable of not only CSG support, but also act day-to-day as part of the LRG and also as an Aviation Support Ship (with 4-6 Helicopters). Agree no well deck (but yes to a steel beach) but not having a “large” aviation capacity would be wrong as there is a need to support limited operations away from the carriers, and also would limit future VERTREP options.

I suspect ALL operation needing significant aviation capability will accompany a CVF. CVF is a floating multi-purpose airbase, not only for strike. (If we limit it only for strike, I'm afraid PoW will be put into extended readiness, like the way 2 LPDs are operated now. )

In any large amphibious operations, a CV will be there, far off the shore. Helicopters will be provided, to be lily-pad on LSD/LPD or LSSs (if it comes). I personally think Chinook is the key here.

In small amphibious operations, the new LSS (I guess it will be a Bay with improved hangar) will do. Of course, in this case not only the aviation capability, but also the large cargo capability of SSS is NOT needed either.

I guess understanding of "limited funds" is much severe in my case. I think RN CANNOT afford "not using" CV in large (and medium) level amphibious operations.

[Repulse]

Yes, but to do this, we need at least two SSS, not only Fort Victoria.

IMO, only if we want to operate permanently a full strength CSG East of Suez with it being part of an allied task group (using USN Supply ships for example) and without it using a forward base like Singapore. Does not seem likely.

However, would agree that a medium term minimum of two would be required, and also any large operation would require two - hence my proposal of a joint support ship (or two).

the new LSS (I guess it will be a Bay with improved hangar) will do

Kill any idea of a LSS now - let’s do it quickly before the madness spreads - just use the two LPDs combined with a JSS for the one EoS. A JSS (FSS + ASS) is a thousand times more needed at the moment IMO. Confusing a JSS with a CVF for aviation would be like confusing it with Argus or Fort Victoria, very different ships.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What is JSS?

If a CVF is ALWAYS with large amphibious operation (and I think it must be), why do we need "large aviation capability"? In other words, when JSS with large aviation capability is in operation, where is the CVF? CVF needs SSS, and there are two CVF and Fort Victoria is only one.

Just a genuine question. Sorry, for clarity. I have no idea what your JSS will be doing without CVF and leaving CVF without solid store supply.

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, The current RFA Argus deployment to the Caribbean is a good example of a JSS deployment, equally something like the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone. Would also argue that a SF operation in Africa would not require a CVF - other places I would agree now a CVF would be needed.

I’d equally envisage a CVF (without FSS) operating in North Atlantic in an ASW role.

[Lord Jim]

I guess understanding of "limited funds" is much severe in my case. I think RN CANNOT afford "not using" CV in large (and medium) level amphibious operations.

It has been stated though that the Carriers will now only have a very limited role in amphibious operations, and given that the size of said operations is being scaled back, with the largest being two or three companies, I would say even medium sized operations are going to be a very rare event. What the Carriers will do is provide air cover and CAS to any operation, but in doing so will be over the horizon and hundreds of miles off shore, keeping them out of reach of any shore based AShMs.

With this change in doctrine and the reduced numbers of fixed and rotary aircraft available, together with the need to make savings where possible, I can on see the Carriers operating as one in service one out of service, whether that is undergoing maintenance and refit or extended readiness would depend on available funding. For the Government the key is to have a permanent Carrier Strike capability first and foremost.

Whilst we may see the occasional tour EoS once and a while this will probably not be that often. The Royal Navy's CSG will become a key NATO asset, and the UK's main maritime contribution to the Alliance, replacing the traditional ASW grouping previously allocated. This is going to be a very important role as the USN continues to focus on the Pacific even though it has recently stood up an "Atlantic" naval headquarters. As a result there is absolutely zero chance of a Carrier being permanently stations EoS or even one being routinely deployed out there.

With only one Carrier operational art any one time the RFA will i all likelihood only need two Solid Stores Support Ships. This means that in the short to medium term there is only the need of an additional FSS, to operate in conjunction with RFA Fort Victoria, with a second coming on line when the latter reached the end of her service life. The role of these new ships must simply be the support of the CSG and the design should be kept as simply as possible to keep costs down. As for aviation assets a hanger for two Merlin sized helicopters should suffice, with Merlin HC3 and HC3a being the most likely candidates.

AS with everything at the moment, the current Integrate Defence and Security Review is going to have a major bearing on this, though the recent publicity about the Carriers not being able to do their jobs through the lack of resources and ships may have embarrassed the Powers that be to begin to move again on the FSS programme with more realistic and affordable requirements. If and it is a big if, the review is done in the right way, though the current signs are not good, we may see defence funding match the aspirations of the Government "Global Britain" policy, but with Government Official constantly stating their mantra of 2% of GDP and annual increases of 0.5% above inflation we are going to see the resources available to he MoD continue to shrink over the next five years at least. Hopefully the RFA will get one new SSS before 2030 and all the pieces of the CGS doctrine will fall into place at the same time, but I fear we are going to be pushed to even match the availability of the French Navy's CdG Carrier Group even though we will have two larger and newer carriers as resources as so restricted.

[Repulse]

I can see the QEs being generally used for the following peace time roles:
- An ASW Carrier in the North Atlantic (9 ASW Merlins, 9 CAP F35Bs and 4 AEW Merlins) where a Tide would be sufficient.
- An EoS Strike Carrier (24+ F35Bs, combination of UK and allied jets) - would require a RFA Solid Support ship or an allied one.

Having an JSS (with capacity for 4-6 helicopters) would allow for a backup to RFA Victoria and give aviation support to one of the LRGs as needed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Repulse-san, Lord Jim-san. Thanks for interesting perspective. We differ in somewhere and agree in other.

- I think the core of LSG will be a modified Bay. It can easily be modified to carry 3-4 Merlin HC4s, if happy to sacrifice small amount of deck-carried vehicles space. When more "ship to shore" and command is needed, an LPD will join. HMG can pretend it also replace RFA Argus.

- On the other hand, this idea does not contradict with SSS with "so-so" aviation capability. If what is needed is "3-4 Merlin HC4", then adding it to FSSS is also not a big issue. But, I do not think a "2 spot large flight deck" nor "5-6 Merlin hangar" are such a high priority, as it looks like taking significant space off Fort Victoria. Making SSS small and simple is important than "2 spot large flight deck". Make it cheap to make it happen. No money is no money.

- Also, I understand QNLZ and PoW will be used in amphibious operations normally. Yes, the upgrade kit to "double" its helicopter landing spot was abandoned, but from the beginning both ship have a good capability to do it = might be better than HMS Ocean. Chinook capable, it will be "loved" by both JHC and RM.

- I agree CVs will be kept far away from the shore if the enemy has a good ASuM capability. But, in that case, anyway landing ships also cannot go there. Putting an LSD/LPD filled with 400-500 RM soldiers and 100-300 crew (and JSSS filled with munitions carrying ~100 aircrew) under severe ASuM attack is not good. If the threat is relatively low and LSD/LPD can approach the shore, then with a little more effort (strike), CVF will also be able to proceed to, say, 200 km from the shore = near enough to deploy Merlin HC4 and Chinook. I believe, in many cases, it will be either "LSD/LPD and CVF are all OK" or "all NG".

[dmereifield]

the arguements about operational requirements is one thing, but the reasons why I'm confident that they will go ahead (some large RFA ships of some kind) is because they are i) shovel ready (can be, if desired, relatively speaking, with long lead items and steel cut in ca. 12 months), ii) ship building is totemic, and iii) will be seen as part of the leveling up agenda. It's right up Boris' street, and now post Covid it's even more important to provide the stimulus and support jobs and industry...can't see them (or ships for another role) not being funded

[Tempest414]

maybe as part of a reshuffle we could replace the two Wave class with a fifth Tide class a Aegir 26R below is the spec for the Aegir 18R

The principal change is the introduction of a cargo hold of 1350m2
in place of the aft most cargo tanks. A
reduced fluid cargo of 12,000m3
is provided. The cargo hold may be configured as required, but nominally
would contain refrigerated, dry provisions and ammunition. Its location aft of the tank section principally
offers reduced vulnerability to the deep cargo munitions, removing them from the forward part of the hull
where collision with another ship or other obstruction is most likely.

The superstructure has also been extended forward over the cargo hold. This provides space adjacent to the
cargo lift servicing the hold for the reconstitution of replenishment stores prior to conducting a RAS. The
extended superstructure also offers significantly enhanced accommodation with 180 berths provided.
Replenishment is conducted by four dual use solid/fluid rigs and by VERTREP for solid stores. A central
clear route is provided from the superstructure along the RAS deck, with a widened route beneath the
replenishment control office.

[donald_of_tokyo]

the arguements about operational requirements is one thing, but the reasons why I'm confident that they will go ahead (some large RFA ships of some kind) is because they are i) shovel ready (can be, if desired, relatively speaking, with long lead items and steel cut in ca. 12 months), ii) ship building is totemic, and iii) will be seen as part of the leveling up agenda. It's right up Boris' street, and now post Covid it's even more important to provide the stimulus and support jobs and industry...can't see them (or ships for another role) not being funded

Reasonable argument I agree.

1: If the budget for building these ship come as an addition to the "2% GDP, 0.5% rise", I have no objection. But, I'm afraid it will not be?

2: And, even so, is ship building a "good thing" to invest?

If it is Rosyth, Clyde, Barrow-in-Furness, "plus-one", it will be OK. (I think "plus-one" now is Cammell Laird). But, if it is other places, it looks like there are no future. For example, if H&W "revives" with SSS, then it will simply mean CL dies in place in future.

Although I have no good information, investing on trains, NHS, education/research, or "more" Typhoon, Ajax and/or Boxer will be better? How about more Meteor missile, more CAMM, ASRAMM, Brimstone etc?. How about a SAMPSON to be carried on T26? Developing a GaN-based Artisan-2? (Or even "fixed plate" full-AESA Artisan?). There are many other options with UK industrial involvement, and with "brighter" future in the industry.

On this regard, modification of Bay LSD (e.g. add permanent hangar), modification of Waves (adding munitions store) is well within what the C.L. can do. Personally, I think SSS should have been good at Rosyth (with other shipyards subcontracted with block building).

As the political power may govern, results may not be logical = anything can happen. But, for me, promoting especially CAMM will be the best way to go with very bright future, for example.

# Here comes my proposal (2nd) to build 1st-SSS abroad and 2nd-hull in UK, at Rosyth.

[dmereifield]

All very good points, Donald, but whatever is ordered, it will be UK built (not 1 hull will be built elsewhere) - the politics will ensure that. Whilst many of the other suggestions you have made may make more sense, they aren't eye catching like shipbuilding. There will almost certainly be ships built of some sort, though their precise role (pure SSS, or multi role) isn't yet clear, nor is it clear which yard(s) within the UK will get the work.

[dmereifield]

According to this piece "Foreign firms" are being invited to tender for the 3* FSS....

I can't see beyond the paywall, but I'd assume this is to pressure a/the UK consortium/bidders to keep costs down, and/or there will be a criterion which focuses on benefit to UK PLC/economy, to ensure that bids from "Foreign firms" are based on a UK build....

*apparently

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... val-ships/

[Aethulwulf]

Foreign firms could build new naval ships
Ministry of Defence asks potential suppliers to consider taking part in the £1bn contract to build three Fleet Solid Support ships

By
Alan Tovey,
INDUSTRY EDITOR
2 August 2020 • 4:53pm
Foreign companies are being invited to take part in early plans to build new ships to support the Royal Navy, going against recommendations of the National Ship Building Strategy and angering maritime unions.

The Ministry of Defence has asked potential suppliers to take part in “market engagement” about the estimated £1bn contract to build three Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships that will help keep the Navy’s new aircraft carriers at sea, providing them with stores such as ammunition and food.

The “prior information notice” on the MoD contracts website adds that it is open to “UK and international suppliers or consortiums offering a UK or international ship design, who are capable of either priming, providing a design and/or integrating or building FSS ships”.

The process is intended to help work out the contract before entering into negotiations with industry about details for construction of the 40,000-tonne vessels.

Three years ago a government-commissioned report by industry veteran Sir John Parker into shipbuilding called for an end to “boom and bust” cycles for UK shipbuilding.

One of Sir John’s recommendations was a steady stream of work to end expensive scaling up and down of yards as naval programmes ended with no more work in sight. Building the FSS ships in the UK was seen as one way of doing this.

However, the Government has argued because the FSS are part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, they are not warships - which have to be UK-built.

Ministers have also said that EU procurement rules mean the contract has to be offered internationally.


Ian Waddell, general secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions (CSEU), said: “We were told repeatedly by government that there had to be an international competition to build these ships because of EU state aid rules. Well, we’ve left the EU so why are international suppliers being invited to tender for this project?”

FSS could also be used to help stimulate the UK economy, with state-funded projects being directed to British industry, the CSEU said.

Mr Waddell added: “Last month the Prime Minister issued an urgent call for ‘shovel-ready’ projects to help the economy recover from the damage wreaked by the coronavirus lockdown - and FSS is a perfect example.”

In November a previous attempt at getting work on the FSS vessels underway was halted, with the MoD stopping the bidding because none of the contenders could meet the budget.

[RichardIC]

Mr Waddell added: “Last month the Prime Minister issued an urgent call for ‘shovel-ready’ projects to help the economy recover from the damage wreaked by the coronavirus lockdown - and FSS is a perfect example.”

There is no single way FSS is "shovel-ready". It's not designed and there isn't the industrial capacity to build them without a lot of investment.

[Ron5]

Mr Waddell added: “Last month the Prime Minister issued an urgent call for ‘shovel-ready’ projects to help the economy recover from the damage wreaked by the coronavirus lockdown - and FSS is a perfect example.”

There is no single way FSS is "shovel-ready". It's not designed and there isn't the industrial capacity to build them without a lot of investment.

That's the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

I think poor Boris is between a rock and a hard place. I have no idea where in the UK there is the capability and capacity to design and build these ships.

Maybe Cammel Laird with a ton of help from BMT & Bae on the design side but that's a risky choice. And BMT & Bae already came to (verbal) blows over FSS.

Even the furriners arn't doing themselves any favors: Spaniards trying to steal Gibraltar with US help, French planning on stealing fish, South Korea saying talk to the hand.

Who's left? Italy? Whole program is one big CF. Thanks Gideon for scrapping Fort George.