Future Solid Support Ship

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

First thing that sprang to mind was either Bay or Point related but, logically, it couldn't be anything to do with either of those, could it? Perhaps it's Argus related?

If it was a return to the Joint Sea Based logistics concept, as you suggest, it would be very much out of the blue. Not saying it wouldn't be a welcome surprise though!

[shark bait]

It has long been the intention of the MARS program to help sustain an amphibious operations, after the initial landing.

Images have shown a steel beach, RORO ramps, LCVP and extensive helicopter facilities for vertical lift, all can be used to support an amphibious force.

I take that specific sentence to be an error because the "Fleet Solid Support" does not "consists of MARS tankers"

Contract award in 2020 means entry into service mid-late 2024, at which Fort Austin will be 44!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Once the Royal Navy receives the new ships it will be able to achieve full use of the new Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carriers, defined as Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) full operating capability and provision of littoral manoeuvre (LitM) capability in support of amphibious forces.

Amph. CS ships was probably just a convenient label to talk about two classes (Albions and Bays) as one, but what is more interesting is that (LitM) has been raised to a defined concept., and thereby separated from the (still) rather nebulous CEPP.

Referring to Shark Baits comment above, yes, and talking about the two capabilities separately (as one should, even though without CEPP there wouldn't be much of LitM) it is easier to make a strong case for the investment need.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Nowadays, MOD is talking about long-term ship building plan. "Amphibious Combat Support ships", if planned order date is 2030, it will just be Albion/Bay replacement. And, it may also mean, no replacement for Argus and Diligence.

I know, this is too much a speculation. But, anyway "Amphibious Combat Support ships" itself is very interesting. Looking forward for additional info.

[Repulse]

Is it an official announcement, or a journo putting some fluff around the tender announcement and using old information?

[marktigger]

weren't the AEFS ships used to support land forces in the Falklands and Bosnia?

[zanahoria]

From the Daily Telegraph:


Fears new ships to back up Royal Navy will be built overseas

Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships support the Navy with supplies while at sea

Alan Tovey, industry editor
24 JULY 2016 • 8:52PM
A new class of ships for the Navy to support Britain’s aircraft carriers could be built outside the UK as the Ministry of Defence seeks savings in its under-pressure budget.

There are growing fears that three “fleet solid support” vessels to provide ammunition, equipment and food for the new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will be built abroad.

Plans for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) ships were confirmed in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and an industry day for companies interested in building the vessels is being held on July 28.

However, rather than guarantee building the 35,000-tonne ships in British yards, experts and unions fear the estimated £1bn contract will be open to bidders from around the world, with the work likely to be sent overseas as foreign companies offer a cheaper deal than UK shipyards.

Contracts for vessels to support the Navy have gone abroad before. In 2012 a £450m deal to build four RFA tankers to fuel Royal Navy ships while at sea was awarded to South Korea’s Daewoo, with final fitting out of the ships with sensitive military equipment being carried out in Falmouth by A&P Group.

Read the rest at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -overseas/

Not really anything that hasn't been discussed on here before, but I guess it has relevance as possible evidence that people are beginning to take positions on what the national ship building should include.

[seaspear]

A question perhaps is if the cost of building naval ships overseas are cheaper than the U.K , and the aim of the defense ministry is to make every pound count in delivery of this program, perhaps the funding difference to ensure the ships are built in the U.K is sourced from a different ministry than defense .

[marktigger]

if we get them on time, on budget, to spec and with no nasty surprises. It Might force UK yards hands to up their game when bidding for MoD work and not see the MoD/Taxpayer as a cashcow

[seaspear]

Sounds reaonable but if there is constant delays by the people who hold the purse strings ,changing design requirments etc its not just the builders causing the problem

[marktigger]

If there is an open tender process and the contract isn't just handed to BaE there is a possibility that it will work out ok. But watch if it doesn't go to Bae Govan the crying and gnashing of teeth by BaE and the SNP

[shark bait]

I don't see an issue building them abroad. If the support vessels are built abroad it increases the budget to build more combatant's in the UK.

[Ron5]

I don't see an issue building them abroad. If the support vessels are built abroad it increases the budget to build more combatant's in the UK.

Ha ha ha ha. Very good

[inch]

first I have read that they are 35,000t , think the tides are 37,000t , guess they be about 200mtrs also

[abc123]

if we get them on time, on budget, to spec and with no nasty surprises. It Might force UK yards hands to up their game when bidding for MoD work and not see the MoD/Taxpayer as a cashcow

Agreed.....

[RichardIC]

first I have read that they are 35,000t , think the tides are 37,000t , guess they be about 200mtrs also

I think what we can read into that is precisely nothing.

The conversation probably went:

Industry Editor to Naval Analyst: "These boats then, how big will they be?"
Naval Analyst: "Too early to say yet."
Industry Editor: "Well I've got to put something. Guess."
Naval Analyst: "Well 35,000 tonnes, maybe."
Industry Editor: "What's that in football pitches/double decker buses?"

I've had quite a lot of those conversations (although not about naval auxiliaries unfortunately). I've even been right occasionally.

[Aethulwulf]

The Defence Contracts Office web site has information on the FSS Industry Day.

https://www.contracts.mod.uk/announceme ... ustry-day/

The assessment phase is due to run until the main gate decision in Dec 2019. During the assessment phase DE&S is looking to place contracts for:

•Independent Design Studies
•Engineering & Project Support
•Heavy Replenishment at Sea Development
•Weapon Handling Integrated System Development

[ArmChairCivvy]

•Independent Design Studies
•Engineering & Project Support
•Heavy Replenishment at Sea Development
•Weapon Handling Integrated System Development

No prices for guessing to whom the 1 & 2 will be allocated:
1: http://pacific.bmt.org/papers/rapid-shi ... evolution/
2. BMT already carries out that role for the Oz subs prgrm

3. Just the other end of what already has suppliers for the carriers (and the land-based testing facility)
4. This one is interesting as I believe there is already a solution for the carriers, but even if the weapons are the same, then again the physical characteristics of these future ships will be v different

[shark bait]

4. This one is interesting as I believe there is already a solution for the carriers, but even if the weapons are the same,

Hopefully this is a confirmation the SSS will feature the same HMWHS as the carrier's.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The US thread carried comments about the troubles aboard the newship Gerard Ford; perhaps there can be learning points on this, both ways across the Pond

[Ron5]

Current plan is to place contracts in 2020. So four years to figure out who to design & build. Who knows when the ships will actually start building.

Seems a tad slow.

[shark bait]

Seems a tad slow.

That is rocket speed for British procurement!

Agreed its a tad slow though, guess there waiting until there is more wiggle room in the budget. Not such a bad thing though, that targets an entry into service in 2024 which is right when they will be demanded by the carriers.

[PAUL MARSAY]

would like to see 4 personally

[shark bait]

why?

Three hulls should give two available, which is one with the carrier and one doing something else. That seems reasonable to me.

[PAUL MARSAY]

insurance same as with the deterence . 1 with the carrier , 1 in uk waters available , 1 in refit/reserve etc and for me 1 in the far east . I honestly think that we are tilting east in a big way and that more and more of our effort will be east of suez.