Future Solid Support Ship

[Lord Jim]

But remember we are doing Carrier Strike in a uniquely british way, in other words "Half arsed" with little or no regard to what the overall package will look like. With the FSS it is a case of having two to three ships so that we can say we have them disregarding what their actually capabilities and numbers are compared to what is needed. It is a general "Tick Box" exercise;
Carriers - check.
F-35 - check.
Tanker - check.
FSS - Check .
and so on

[RichardIC]

This seems like a massive reduction in operational effectiveness. For so much to be invested in carrier strike only to reduce the capability at the last moment seems bizarre.

My point exactly but that's unfortunately the way things seem to pan out with UK defence.

And we're the only Tier 1 F-35 partner, but there seems a real possibility that we'll only end up with 48 aircraft.

So, taking the orthodox view that you can't forward deploy more that a third of your overall strength for an extended period, that means we'll generally have one carrier with a max of 15 aircraft available - thus removing the need for HRAS.

[ArmChairCivvy]

generally have one carrier with a max of 15 aircraft available - thus removing the need for HRAS.

I would tend to agree. Even if you extend to 60%, you would have that number per carrier. Perhaps unevenly distributed between them
- having only a singleton in service (until when? 2030?) is a huge single point of failure (and nothing needs to 'fail' - just that the stores might need replenishing)
- in the end game, having two ASAP tops the HRAS rqrmnt

[SW1]

Been the trajectory for more than a decade now and tiers for f35 ended with the end of sdd phase a couple of years ago.

[ArmChairCivvy]

tiers for f35 ended with the end of sdd phase

Is a new bill in the post

[Tempest414]

Lets say if Merlin could VERTREP 4 ton loads and the FSS could carry say 5 Merlin within 10 trips they could move an extra 200 tons. Would it be possible for 5 helicopters to move 200 tons in say 3 hours

[Caribbean]

I know this may be somewhat simplistic, but could there not be an intermediate way? Retain the heavy RAS rigs, but move two 2-tonne loads at a time, with the exceptional weight items being held in storage at deck level close to the loading point (by the sound of it, it's not likely to be many items that exceed the two-tonne limit) - that way all the deep storage uses a conventional 2 tonne load handling system, with only the main-deck level being equipped to handle exceptional loads, such as F35 engines (and that could be as simple as an overhead gantry crane).

[shark bait]

Is this the Bae design? Anybody know?

Unlikely, that image has been circulating for about 10 years now.

now we could go for six Karel Doorman class 3 set up for Carrier support and 3 for LRG support replacing Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , 2 x Wave and Argu

While I do think the KD could make a nice base for the SSS, six may be a step too far, it would be a shame to loose the dock when the bays are replaced.

Would it be possible for 5 helicopters to move 200 tons in say 3 hours

Yeah, if you've ever watched the mad pilots lifting equipment to remote constriction sites you can see this is possible. However there's no way you could safely have five helicopters doing VREP in parallel .

[Ron5]

Telegraph this morning

Why supporting the Royal Navy is a battle for British shipbuilding

A £1.5bn contract to construct ships to keep the Navy's aircraft carriers supplied at sea could keep UK shipbuilding afloat - or sink it
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 23 October 2020 • 6:00am

Weighing in at 65,000 tonnes, the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are the service’s biggest ships, and return the UK to a small club of nations with naval air strike capabilities.

But these ships can’t operate alone. As well as screens of destroyers, frigates and submarines to protect them, the carriers need less glamorous vessels to keep them topped up with fuel and supplies.

To support them, the UK has bought four Tide-class tankers built by Daewoo in Korea. The programme to acquire three “fleet solid support” (FSS) ships to provide technical support and provisions for the carriers is yet to start in earnest, but for years has been mired in controversy over the possibility the 40,000-tonne vessels could also be built abroad.

According to some, the fate of Britain’s shipbuilding industry depends on this £1.5bn order.

While work that will run into the next decade on new frigates is either under way or about to start at the yards of BAE Systems in Glasgow and Babcock in Rosyth, there’s little else in the pipeline.

British yards cannot compete with foreign rivals when it comes to mass-produced civilian ships as they do not have the same economies of scale and low costs, and demand is thin for the highly complex and costly specialised ships where the playing field is level.

For UK shipbuilding yards, such Appledore in Devon, Cammell Laird in Birkenhead and Harland & Wolff in Belfast, the FSS being British-built could be a matter of life and death.

Although owned by the MoD, support ships such as FSS vessels are operated by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and crewed by civilians.

This means they are merchant vessels and not classed as warships - which have to be UK-built because of national security concerns - and the work could go abroad.

Ministers had previously argued this distinction meant under EU rules the work had to be tendered internationally. This insistence came despite the fact the ships will sail alongside the Navy and other countries’ navies have no such qualms about ensuring their own support ships are domestically built.

However, a government U-turn in September resulted in defence secretary Ben Wallace referring the FSS as warships following intense criticism of the policy.

On Tuesday, he gave further hope by announcing that the competition to build the FSS - which stalled last year over pricing - would relaunch in the spring.

“Shipbuilding has historically been a British success story, and I am determined to revitalise this amazing industry,” Wallace said.

The programme would be “the genesis of a great UK shipbuilding industry, and allow us to develop the skills and expertise for the shipyards of tomorrow”, he added.

However, the news got a lukewarm reception from unions and experts. Pushing aside the jingoism, critics homed in the MoD noting the competition would “require a significant proportion of the build and assembly” to be carried out in Britain.

Defence officials refused to be drawn on just how significant the requirement is, leading to fears that rather than ensuring Britain’s shipbuilding industry is buoyant, the FSS contract might not even keep it afloat.

Ian Wadell, general-secretary of the Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions that has fought bitterly to have FSS vessels built in Britain, said: “This lack of certainty is hugely frustrating given that we still have no idea what this means for UK shipyards.

“‘Substantial’ is a weasel word and what the MoD might think of as significant might look entirely different to skilled workers and regional communities facing job losses without a guarantee to build these ships in the UK.”

The Telegraph understands that only two groups are actively considering bidding for the FSS. The first is an all-British consortium dubbed “Team UK” comprising BAE Systems, Babcock, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce.

The other is “Team Resolute”, consisting of British maritime consultancy BMT, Harland & Wolff - owned by Infrastrata, which recently acquired Appledore - along with Spanish state-owned shipbuilding company Navantia.

Previous prospective bidders from Japan, Korea and Italy dropped out of the earlier competitions but could return if they can line up UK participation.

The shipbuilding union fears that much of the work could go to Spain if Team Resolute wins out. Harland & Wolff has only 100 staff and last built a ship in 2003, while Appledore has just one employee looking after the mothballed shipyard. To be fair, their parent company Infrastrata has spelled out its ambitions to expand under its ownership.

Like many state-backed yards, Navantia’s ownership means that to guarantee work, it can offer terms impossible for commercial rivals to match. It’s not alone in this: some other shipbuilders that have previously expressed interest in the FSS have similar government backing.

Wadell urged the Government to “commit now to what share of the work is expected to go where”.

He added that ministers “need to understand that FSS is not a nice to have but it is vital as a bridge that will maintain our workforce until future naval procurements come down the pipeline. The alternative is job losses and yard closures."

Paul Stott, senior shipbuilding lecturer at Newcastle University, described the Government as having “tied one of the UK industry’s arms behind its back” by inviting foreign bidders, even though classing the FSS as warships "takes them outside the ambit of public procurement rules and enables the contracts to be directed to the benefit of the development of the industry and the economy in the UK”.

Foreign shipyards’ involvement could benefit the UK from technology transfer, he admits, but warns “it is possible that it will simply add cost and confusion to the procurement process and dilute the benefit of these contracts”.

Despite hopes FSS will put British shipbuilding on the crest of a wave, it looks like the battle for these ships - or warships - has only just begun.

[Ron5]

In the article above this was shown as being Cammell Laird's design.

"NDP" on the ship presumably stands for National Design Partnership.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Wasn't NDP funded to facilitate working together in the concept phase, even though the experts contributed by different companies might then work in competing consortia in design and, those whose companies/ consortia were selected, also in detailed design phases?

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 wrote:
now we could go for six Karel Doorman class 3 set up for Carrier support and 3 for LRG support replacing Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , 2 x Wave and Argu

While I do think the KD could make a nice base for the SSS, six may be a step too far, it would be a shame to loose the dock when the bays are replaced.

I do agree the loss of the Bay class docks would be less than ideal however 6 ships of one class replacing 9 ship with the first 3 fitted with HRAS and geared towards Carrier operations and the last 3 geared towards LRG operations. We could say go for a ship 200 to 210 by 32 meters with the first 3 set up with a hangar for 3 helicopter and a flight deck with 2 spots plus HRAS and the rear end closed in and the last 3 set up with a hangar for 6 helicopters and flight deck with 4 spots plus a well dock for 2 Caimen-90. And to then push this on a bit if we replaced the Albion's with 2 new LPD's using the same hull a dock for 2 Caimen-90 but with a Hangar for 4 helicopters and C&C would leave the fleet in a good place and a build program running from 2024 to 2040

[Jake1992]

Tempest414 wrote:
now we could go for six Karel Doorman class 3 set up for Carrier support and 3 for LRG support replacing Fort Vic , 3 x Bay , 2 x Wave and Argu

While I do think the KD could make a nice base for the SSS, six may be a step too far, it would be a shame to loose the dock when the bays are replaced.

I do agree the loss of the Bay class docks would be less than ideal however 6 ships of one class replacing 9 ship with the first 3 fitted with HRAS and geared towards Carrier operations and the last 3 geared towards LRG operations. We could say go for a ship 200 to 210 by 32 meters with the first 3 set up with a hangar for 3 helicopter and a flight deck with 2 spots plus HRAS and the rear end closed in and the last 3 set up with a hangar for 6 helicopters and flight deck with 4 spots plus a well dock for 2 Caimen-90. And to then push this on a bit if we replaced the Albion's with 2 new LPD's using the same hull a dock for 2 Caimen-90 but with a Hangar for 4 helicopters and C&C would leave the fleet in a good place and a build program running from 2024 to 2040

Iv been on about this set up and common hull between the SSS, LSD and LPD for a good while on the amphibious thread but get called fantasy fleet when going in to it.

It’s the best path way I believe and the design for the SSS that’s been going around for years would be a good starting point

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 2018 RFP

Fleet-Solid-Support-Ship-BMT-Design.jpg (475.84 KiB) Viewed 54 times

" cargo capacity of up to 7,000 m3 (250,000 cu ft), be able to sail at a sustained speed of 18 knots"

Hope the nested quotes won't come out as a mess!
[ they did, so the image can be found by rolling back two pages on this thread]
Aside from the heavy RAS rigs going, it is noteworthy how many cranes are included in the design
- would it be to simplify the internal cargo handling - has been cited to be a high cost factor - with many 'exit points along the length of the hull; or just to do the job when quay-side?
- further, now about loading onto the ship, there is no 'hatch' on the side - the older images/designs had this - so would a rear-ramp be assumed, for the ease of just 'driving in'? The angle for the image does not tell

[shark bait]

common hull between the SSS, LSD and LPD

It sounds nice, and it would likely drive down cost, however a well deck is fundamental to the hull design so it's not an element that could easily flex between the classes.

[RichardIC]

Iv been on about this set up and common hull between the SSS, LSD and LPD for a good while on the amphibious thread but get called fantasy fleet when going in to it.

It’s the best path way I believe and the design for the SSS that’s been going around for years would be a good starting point

It's nonsense (apparently).

N-a-B (Not a Boffin) who contributes to several forums and seems to be well respected on all of them posted this on Save The Royal Navy.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone state “we’ve always done it this way so it’s right”. What I have seen is people postulate all sorts of ideas without any real basic understanding of the issues.

So, let’s take your “200m common hull” for RFAs, amphibious ships etc etc and analyse it.

Shall we start with what these ships are supposed to do? Usually a good idea.

RFA
Tankers – carry large quantities (typically 15000-20000te) of F44 and F76 (density ~0.8 t/m3) in multiple tanks. Cargo transferred via numerous pipelines at something like 600m3/hr/line. Cargo tanks tend to be deep and must be separated from the side shell. RAS stations need to be midships, such that the ship can keep a hydrodynamically stable position alongside the ship(s) it’s fuelling.

Store ships – embark, stow and keep in safe conditions a huge variety of cargo ranging from ammunition, through tinned, chilled and frozen foods to cleaning fluids, bin bags. bog roll, naval and air spares. All provided in different packaging ranging from bespoke munitions containers to small items in individual box. Many with different stowage requirements (temperature, humidity, electrical safety, ventilation etc etc). Density of cargo items variable, from 2te/m3 for beer, to 0.5te/m3 for an AIM120 container, but will actually be much less overall as you need access space and things like stacking limits, separation rules etc apply. Cargo handled onboard at sea – unlike commercial ships where cargo handling is virtually exclusively alongside in port. That means clear vertical and horizontal routes from cargo holds to the embarkation and RAS points on the upper deck, none of which can compromise internal subdivision, which is required to meet survivability requirements (damaged stability, fire protection etc). Those routes must have adequate strength to take FLT pressures and clearance to allow them to manoeuvre with cargo. You also need extensive pre-staging areas to have cargo ready to go to the jackstay rigs (or flightdeck for VERTREP). All these spaces are manned at some stage so need lighting, HVAC, firefighting, escape systems, communications, smoke detectors, flood sensors, etc etc.

Again RAS stations equidistant about midships, but aligned to potential receiving ships. QEC is a particular problem in this instance.

Amphibs
Depending on whether carrying vehicles requiring landing craft or not, may need a stern dock, capable of being flooded to a depth sufficient to allow laden craft to enter the dock. This affects the entire configuration of the ship from an arrangement and hydrodynamic perspective. It’s not something you can just “clag on”, as it affects principal dimensions and also requires a huge amount of ballast tank provision in specific places and of course the pumps and lines to fill and empty them.

If carrying vehicles, then need vehicle deck with access to dock, probably flightdeck and ideally side or stern ramp for loading in port. Vehicle deck needs to be strong enough for heaviest vehicle loading, high enough for largest vehicle (plus additional height for lighting, HVAC, firefighting systems etc) and is generally above watertight subdivision (which has an impact on your survivability philosophy).

If using helicopters, you need a flightdeck and if operating several, a large flightdeck and preferably a hangar. Lots of configurations possible, but a below deck hangar will require lifts and a clear height of ~7m, plus HVAC, lighting , firefighting etc etc.

Assuming you want troops to man these vehicles, landing craft helicopters etc, you then have to find deck area and volume for several hundred people, plus showers, toilets, messing areas, access, dining spaces, personal gear stores etc etc. Because they’ll be living aboard potentially for months. huge impact on lighting, HVAC, electrical systems, hot and cold fresh water, grey and black water, sewage treatment plants and so-forth. That’s all in addition to the ships complement. Just to complicate things further you also need to provide escape routes, Life-saving equipment etc etc.

Why is all this important? It’s just words, right? It’s important because it will hopefully demonstrate just how different these ship types are.

Oh, but that’s just the internals, if the hull is the same it doesn’t matter right? Wrong.

Those differences are reflected in every single design calculation, document, certification statement, design drawing, production drawing, equipment specification that you actually build a ship with. It’s not just a computer generated shape that pops out for some whittling by the shipwrights. Producing all that takes upwards of a million manhours and they’re not transferable. This is where cost lies.

Your RFA tanker has approximately 25% of its area requiring normal access, whereas the figures for stolid stores and amphibs are closer to 80%. That has huge implications for systems design, electrical power provision, chilled water systems, insulation, fluid systems etc.

Weight distribution is very different across ship types, because of the different arrangement requirements and cargos. That has a major impact on the actual structural design (steel plate type, thickness, section type, thickness, spacing, bracketing etc etc). Thousands of details, all affected by the arrangement of the ship and its systems.

It also means that you tend to want to adjust the principal dimensions and coefficients to ensure that you do things like float on a relatively even keel, float at a sensible draft etc etc. For example, you tend to want your amphib to have a relatively low draft to get in close to shore, yet still offload landing craft. A tanker tends to have a deeper draft to efficiently carry its (relatively) heavier cargo. That’s why even the hullform (shape) tends to change with design requirements. Change the shape, change the characteristics, change the design documentation, change the production drawings and info.

The hullform shape is relatively cheap to define, test etc. Usually a low handful of million, which when compared to the tens of millions spent on producing the design information for the hull and systems is in the noise.

“Common hulls” sound attractive if you don’t have to design or build them. However, the single most important point is that the tens of millions invested in conducting multiple designs (compared to the billions in building them) means that you don’t lose the skills required to do so. If you lose that – as we found out with T26 and the US found out with Zumwalt and LCS – you are in serious and expensive bother.

Despite my better judgement, an essay. Apologies.

[SW1]

And here was me thinking that RFA Fort Victoria is an rfa that offloads fuel, solid stores, can embark more than 150 additional personnel and has a large flight deck hanger and embark about 5 merlins and even embarked landing craft. Wonder what it’s role is at present.

[ArmChairCivvy]

They didn't read the books, but rather designed what the customer wanted
... a bit like AS90 (OK, not a ship; but waxing philosophical )

[Ron5]

And here was me thinking that RFA Fort Victoria is an rfa that offloads fuel, solid stores, can embark more than 150 additional personnel and has a large flight deck hanger and embark about 5 merlins and even embarked landing craft. Wonder what it’s role is at present.

Huh?

NaB says that a common hull design used for three different ships for three different purposes is daft. How does your comment related to that?

[Roders96]

And here was me thinking that RFA Fort Victoria is an rfa that offloads fuel, solid stores, can embark more than 150 additional personnel and has a large flight deck hanger and embark about 5 merlins and even embarked landing craft. Wonder what it’s role is at present.

Huh?

NaB says that a common hull design used for three different ships for three different purposes is daft. How does your comment related to that?

The point, well made, is that;

if it was so daft why has the royal navy - of all navies - done it.

[Ron5]

And here was me thinking that RFA Fort Victoria is an rfa that offloads fuel, solid stores, can embark more than 150 additional personnel and has a large flight deck hanger and embark about 5 merlins and even embarked landing craft. Wonder what it’s role is at present.

Huh?

NaB says that a common hull design used for three different ships for three different purposes is daft. How does your comment related to that?

The point, well made, is that;

if it was so daft why has the royal navy - of all navies - done it.

Huh? Which three ships would that be?

[donald_of_tokyo]

#Gentlemen, calm down....

There are 3 to 4 tasks listed here.
- Tanker
- Solid Store Replenishment
- well-dock for landing
- aviation capability (for landing and or other)

NaB-san says, there is no way building 3 (or 4) types of SPECIALIST vessels using "common hull".

RFA Fort Victoria is a multi-purpose ship, with Tanker, Solid Store Replenishment, and aviation capabilities (primarily intended for ASW, but used for replenishment) = 3 capabilities mixed in a single hull

These two points are independent and consistent each other.

I understand RN considered mixing Tanker and SSS is not a good way. So that the Fort George was scrapped, and FSSS does NOT include tanker requirement (I guess tanker environment-friendly requirements getting so limiting, now).

FSSS concept once had a well-dock included, so maybe SSS and well-dock can be combined (if the budget allows it) better than a tanker. But now looks like RN is more focussed on SSS-only. I personally think it is very good way to go. In supporting CSG, well-dock (and associated huge ballast tank) is just a big dead-weight (will amount 2000-4000 tonnes of dead-weight). I do not think common hull will save money. BUT, common propulsion, common ship builder (to use vastly common equipments), with common navigation and ship control electronics will save something.

[RichardIC]

And here was me thinking that RFA Fort Victoria is an rfa that offloads fuel, solid stores, can embark more than 150 additional personnel and has a large flight deck hanger and embark about 5 merlins and even embarked landing craft. Wonder what it’s role is at present.

RFA Fort Victoria is currently being an inadequate stores ship for the QEs because there's absolutely no other game in town.

She was designed as a mother ship for a bunch of Type 23s back in the early 80s when the Type 23 was intended to be little other than a platform for a towed array sonar.

Her tanking capacity is far inferior to the Tides and she doesn't have heavy RAS gear.

She has great aviation facilities because she was supposed to carry Merlin instead of them being being based on individual T23s. Carrying five Merlin and the intended fit of Sea Wolf and associated directors (that never happened) is why she can accommodate an extra 150 personnel.

This isn't a denigration of Fort Vic. She's a fantastic, if ageing, asset. But in the context of carrier strike it's mainly a happy accident.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Carrying five Merlin and the intended fit of Sea Wolf and associated directors (that never happened) is why she can accommodate an extra 150 personnel.

This isn't a denigration of Fort Vic. She's a fantastic, if ageing, asset. But in the context of carrier strike it's mainly a happy accident.

Yes, a happy accident is nice to see (when in the main we only see the other kind).

As for carrier strike (support) the Gvmnt better put a tiger in the tank as no later date than 2028 has been floated for her serviceability.

Were she usable well past that date the money saved by making the FSS hulls simpler and w/o dead weight could help us towards the target of having three of them (eventually)
... and Ft Vic could serve out her days as the supply ship for the landed amph. force (and also if we kept one off somebody else's coast, bobbing up and down, as a deterrent:
- 5 helos to get some supplies directly to where they are needed
- an embarked force protection err, force of 150 to secure the beach head for off-loading the rest by other means
- enough fuel to keep the rest of the amph. force's vessels 'tanked up' while the bulk of the TF stays OTH

Lateral thinking ... or completely OTT

[Lord Jim]

Fort Vic working with a Bay or Albion could be a good way of assessing what is needed in the eventual purpose designed LSS.