Future Solid Support Ship
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
My biggest fear is we end up with a one trick pony and if carrier is mothballed so will the SSS along with it
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
and when the contract started, a number of them could be called at 30 days noticeTempest414 wrote:are pure sealift for the army
... now that they are down from 6 to 4, not sure what that notice is
So. nothing much to do with FSS. Full stop & period
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Any government minister that thinks it is ok to mothball a QEC and it’s SSSs should be committed to a lunatic asylum without further delay.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The SSS could also provide logistical support to other operations, that would free up the Bays to carry other items during such operations. The Idea of a largish hanger able to hole 2 to 4 Merlin and a two spot deck would be a very useful idea. The vessel will probably come with a side door anyhow to enable rapid loading of stores in port, so having one of the stores areas reconfigurable to a small vehicle deck as an alternative use may also work. But nothing must add anything above an incidentally small cost increase to the SSS, to allow the RN to ge the best support ship for the Carriers it can afford first and foremost.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Mostly agree with Jim above, three stores ships with extra aviation capacity, and a 'mission deck' with side ramp would suite the Royal Navy nicely. A well dock is probs a step too far.
I've uploaded a support ship 'design' paper that some may find interesting
https://pdfhost.io/v/DK9Mo1VcH_Paper.pdf
I've uploaded a support ship 'design' paper that some may find interesting
https://pdfhost.io/v/DK9Mo1VcH_Paper.pdf
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
They already "work" in oneScimitar54 wrote:Any government minister that thinks it is ok to mothball a QEC and it’s SSSs should be committed to a lunatic asylum without further delay.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Very interesting indeed. Thank you.shark bait wrote:Mostly agree with Jim above, three stores ships with extra aviation capacity, and a 'mission deck' with side ramp would suite the Royal Navy nicely. A well dock is probs a step too far.
I've uploaded a support ship 'design' paper that some may find interesting
https://pdfhost.io/v/DK9Mo1VcH_Paper.pdf
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The US are building a training and disaster relief ship which has a nice feature that should work its way onto the future Royal Navy support ship. A mid-size RORO deck under the flight deck with a side ramp.
Along with a big hanger it would make it more of a multi purpose support ship, as well as a carrier support ship which is important keep the ships valuable even when a carrier group is not at sea. It would go some way to filling the gap the Littoral Strike Ship was suppose to fill.
(The US call it the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV))
Along with a big hanger it would make it more of a multi purpose support ship, as well as a carrier support ship which is important keep the ships valuable even when a carrier group is not at sea. It would go some way to filling the gap the Littoral Strike Ship was suppose to fill.
(The US call it the National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV))
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The Littoral Strike Ship was notable by it's absence in last weeks flashy news, I assume this means the project is dead and gone. Instead some of those featured should be folded into the Future Solid Support Ship.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I do not think so. SSS must be SSS. No training room, no big RoRo deck (just diluting the cargo space), no 2nd bridge, better be with 2 propeller shafts not one, and not built completely to commercial standard. Most of the features selling this concept is not applicable to SSS, I thought.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I think it's a case of wait and see. There was no mention of the LPD's either, but they are still going to be around. As a "sea base", the LSS could be a significant component of an amphibious groupshark bait wrote:The Littoral Strike Ship was notable by it's absence in last weeks flashy news, I assume this means the project is dead and gone. Instead some of those featured should be folded into the Future Solid Support Ship.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I think it's a case of wait and see. There was no mention of the LPD's either, but they are still going to be around. As a "sea base", the LSS could be a significant component of an amphibious groupshark bait wrote:The Littoral Strike Ship was notable by it's absence in last weeks flashy news, I assume this means the project is dead and gone. Instead some of those featured should be folded into the Future Solid Support Ship.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Especially if combined with a Wave. Massively versatile.Caribbean wrote:As a "sea base", the LSS could be a significant component of an amphibious group
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
From listening to Ben Wallace, the nature of the UK's global posture is a "Stretch" target, with the task of defending the UK and its territories the priority. He also mentions allies, but I take that to initially mean NATO rather than our friends further afield, which I believe comes under global posture. The LSS might still be alive but I think we are looking further down the road past 2030 for them to materialise. Stand-ins will be used until then with the LSS possibly being their replacement.
The FSS will have little or nothing to do with this. They will be tied to the Carriers full time especially if we only end up with two. When even a Carrier sails it will have an FSS and Tide in attendance, whether it is a planned deployment or a response to an crisis. Because of this their capabilities will be limited to their primary role. One will be available at all times matching the availability of a Carrier. The other will be in maintenance etc.. Until she retires Fort Victoria will take on the role of supporting non carrier task force deployments when these occur in my opinion unless we actually get three FSS then I see her being retired once the third is in service.
The FSS will have little or nothing to do with this. They will be tied to the Carriers full time especially if we only end up with two. When even a Carrier sails it will have an FSS and Tide in attendance, whether it is a planned deployment or a response to an crisis. Because of this their capabilities will be limited to their primary role. One will be available at all times matching the availability of a Carrier. The other will be in maintenance etc.. Until she retires Fort Victoria will take on the role of supporting non carrier task force deployments when these occur in my opinion unless we actually get three FSS then I see her being retired once the third is in service.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Nope. The old carriers never have a support ship tied to them, neither does Charles de Gaulle. The only time the carriers need a support ship tied to them is during high intensity ops a long way from home i.e. a fraction of the time.Lord Jim wrote:They will be tied to the Carriers full time
Nope. It should be three.Lord Jim wrote:end up with two
Nope. The auxiliaries get significantly higher availability than Carriers. They bay class demonstrates this very well, at times all three have been at sea on operations.Lord Jim wrote: matching the availability of a Carrier
Unless they have a secondary role they will be sat collecting rust on the Mersey
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I agree.shark bait wrote:Nope. It should be three.Lord Jim wrote:end up with two
Not sure. Bays are simpler than SSS, I understand? SSS is not a simple cargo ship, but a ship with a huge cargo-handling system. But Bay has a well dock. What was the availability comparison between Forts and Bays?Nope. The auxiliaries get significantly higher availability than Carriers. They bay class demonstrates this very well, at times all three have been at sea on operations.Lord Jim wrote: matching the availability of a Carrier
This point, I agree.Unless they have a secondary role they will be sat collecting rust on the Mersey
Having a vehicle deck is good, if it is small (in view of damage control). Adding a small steal beach may or may not be worth (you can crane your vehicle, and carrying a LCVP on deck is easy).
MSNV concept is good and interesting, but many of the selling points are not applicable to SSS. This is why I said SSS shall be SSS. The only two points I realized is a bit larger hospital and a smallish vehicle deck. All other aspects are impressive and great as a training ship.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I agree it should be three but will we get that many? We should of had thirteen T-26 but only got eight (hopefully). If all RFAs were supposed to be multi role, why didn't they give the Tides a vehicle deck or cargo carrying capacity? The role of the SSS is to support the Carriers full stop. If you want HASR or support for land operations, well we do actually have a class of ships for that, they are called the Bays. Next people will be suggesting they attach a Towed Array and facilities to operate ASW unmanned vehicles!
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
For sure. I only posted because that design of that vehicle deck could be used on the SSS, the rest is no good.donald_of_tokyo wrote:MSNV concept is good and interesting, but many of the selling points are not applicable to SSS
This guff has been repeated a couple of times now, and it's just not true. The MARS project always had provision for ship-to-ship transfer, ship-to-shore transfer and forward aviation support. It has never been just about the carriers.Lord Jim wrote:The role of the SSS is to support the Carriers full stop.
The Tankers are for Bulk consumables, the SSS is for non-bulk cargo. The design of the former does not lend its self well to handle anything that cant be pumped. The latter is better suited for additional roles, the handling requirements for a crate of potatoes are not so different to a Land Rover for example.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The project had many things in it, and I guess the order between the three you mentioned is as priorities have been setshark bait wrote:The MARS project always had provision for ship-to-ship transfer, ship-to-shore transfer and forward aviation support. It has never been just about the carriers.
... so what are we (likely) going to as for ship-to-shore transfer and forward aviation support?
- for the first mentioned the amphibs can do double-duty (but the fleet is shrinking in front of our very eyes)
- the Tides effectively skipped the latter aspect, so that might rise to n:o 2 position in the priorities as to what to have in the design and what to leave out
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I would agree with that in the main but it's also a bit more complicated.shark bait wrote:The MARS project always had provision for ship-to-ship transfer, ship-to-shore transfer and forward aviation support. It has never been just about the carriers.
Much of the reason the FSS vessels are budgeted to be so expensive is due to cost and complexity of bulk ammo/ordnance handling and stowage for high intensity CVF Ops. Is this level of capacity and complexity necessary for short endurance Ops with the LRG's?
Replenishment of dry stores even with a large amount refrigeration involved isn't that complicated or expensive.
As far as sea-basing for the FCF is concerned I would like to see a full assessment of what a modified LPD, Bay and Wave combination could achieve in the LRG role before looking to build anything else or necessarily relying on a FSS to provide replenishment.
It is also worth considering, if HMG is serious about operating 2 CSG's (one high availability, one low availability) with one possibility forward based then the 3 FSS will be retained for CSG Ops only. If the FSS vessels are going to be regular components of 2 independent LRG's then HMG will have to fund 5 or 6 FSS. I think it's pretty clear that isn't going to happen.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Me too!Poiuytrewq wrote: would like to see a full assessment of what a modified LPD, Bay and Wave combination could achieve in the LRG role before looking to build anything else or necessarily relying on a FSS
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)