Future Solid Support Ship

[shark bait]

Why do we need a replenishment ship in UK waters? That counter to the point

[RichardIC]

More to the point, why do we need one permanently in the Far East. OK, I get the "tilting" thing, but one out there full time? They're resupply ships and need something to resupply. They'll carry a vast inventory stock that needs to be be where it's most required.

And I'd like 10. But I'd be very happy with three.

[GibMariner]

I think 4 is a bit unrealistic considering the original MARS proposals from around a decade ago envisioned 2 Solid Support Ships (Fleet Solid Stores I believe the name was back then) as well as 3 Joint Sea-Based Logistics vessels - which was dropped, and a third SSS to be procured instead - presumably with the SSS to be enhanced to cover the JSBL role. Gabriele wrote a good summary on his blog a while ago.

[GibMariner]

Also, with the enhanced facilities in Bahrain, there may be less need to keep a stores ship in the region.

[PAUL MARSAY]

i stated my preference for 4 on the view that there will more RN presence east of suez not just the gulf, of course that may never happen but I think brexit may push us back in the direction of being a global navy once again.
the one I would station in home waters would be used for training and for emergencies (future proofing to a degree)
But I agree I think we will only get 3

[Aethulwulf]

The number of MARS FSS ships needed is critically dependant upon the number of independent naval task groups the UK wishes to maintain at any one time. The current ambition stretches to just one task group (be it carrier strike, littoral manoeuvre, or some weird combination). Three FSS to support one task group sounds sufficient to me.

[PAUL MARSAY]

Like CASD 3 leaves no slack . I don't we have a snowballs of 4 unless we get some sort of BOGOF deal but 4 allows a degree of future proofing .

[Aethulwulf]

Like CASD 3 leaves no slack . I don't we have a snowballs of 4 unless we get some sort of BOGOF deal but 4 allows a degree of future proofing .

CASD requires one boat to always be at sea on operations. The UK's maritime task group will not always be at sea on operations, far from it. Although 2 carriers should allow one carrier to be kept at high readiness - this is not the same as always being on a operation. Three FSS should be enough to support one task group as it cycles through different readiness states.

[Old RN]

If I remember correctly when the Polaris programme started in the early 1960s the view was that with the planned 5 Resolution class (one was cancelled when Labour won the 1966 (?) election they expected to guarantee to have 2 boats at sea at all times. With 4 it became 1 at all times and 2 for 70% of the time. That was with cold war priorities and two full crews per boat. But it was also with refuelling refits every 4 years per boat (IIRC). Nowadays with reator cores lasting the life of the boat I suspect that 3 boats could keep 1 on station.

Of interest the long lead items ordered for the 5th Resolution boat provided a very welcome set of strategic spares for the 4 that were built.

[shark bait]

I believe it is accepted that CASD could be done with 3 boats, theirs just more risk as its then more difficult to cover for accidents. Loosing CASD is unacceptable so with have a 4th to cover that risk, it may be acceptable to loose a supply ship so we only have three.

Three is the correct number, we will only ever be supporting one carrier group so we only need one supply ship available at all times. Its a commercial unit, so its availability should be higher than a military unit too, much like the bay class.

The T26 and T45 use VLS so cant be resupplied at sea any way, food and fuel can come from the tankers.

Fort Victoria has been used as a sort of sea base, operating independently. It was the intention to have the SSS as a sea base, do we know if that still stands? If so its quite likely we will see one deployed to supply the carrier group, then another deployed other operations.

[PAUL MARSAY]

if one is to be used as a sea base then i think 4 would be needed , but regardless of need 3 will be the most we get

[shark bait]

1 with the carrier, 1 as a sea base, 1 in maintenance.

[PAUL MARSAY]

and if the 2nd carrier is surged ? So during maintenance periods we are short handed , I know I am talking fantasy fleets here . I also like to use the tankers and solid support ships as pairs so 4 plus 4 and the 2 waves supprting small ship deployments

[shark bait]

If the second carrier is surged (impossible for the next 20 years), we must be deep in the shit and the rule book is thrown out.

In this theoretical instance surely it would be 1 store ship with each task group, and 1 at home?

[PAUL MARSAY]

The world is a getting a very dark place Sharkbait I can see multiple scenarios developing simultaneously the baltic , Asia/Pacific and the Eastern Med all at the same time each requiring forces with full RFA support .

[shark bait]

I don't dispute that, I think it would be technically impossible for the Royal Navy to equip and protect two carriers simultaneously within the next couple of decades, it will be 20 years before we have enough aircraft for two carriers.

Even the might of the USN only manages three. Demanding a single continuous carrier capability from the Royal Navy is already a huge task.

I agree that we should be equipped to operate in 2 oceans at the same time, but 2 carriers at the same time seems unrealistic.

[marktigger]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/union-c ... ign=social

GMB calls for the SSS to be built at Rosyth

[bobp]

GMB calls for the SSS to be built at Rosyth

To me that makes sense with blocks made around the country will keep valuable shipyards going. Even if it costs more to build.

[andrew98]

Would be good for UK business, but not for overstretched defence budget, now maybe with the cost difference from cheaper foreign build covered by Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy for example then go for it.

[Ron5]

Home built ships are subject to 20% VAT. Korean ships are not. Good system eh?

By the way, calling them Tories won't help the unions case. I suspect the call was more politically motivated than anything.

[shark bait]

cost difference from cheaper foreign build covered by Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy for example then go for it.

That's pretty much what the French do, and it appears to work for them, but subsidising industry isn't really a thing for Tories, so it seems like a long shot.

Cammell Laird we're successful in an open competition, perhaps Babock can be. I would be wary about paying a large premium to have them built in the UK, there isn't much strategic value to that, and the money is desperately needed elsewhere. eg a £100 million premium could upgrade a handful more Merlin for crows nest.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Home built ships are subject to 20% VAT. Korean ships are not. Good system eh?

.

Lots of studies about multiplier effects in defence proc , home vs. abroad.

Just narrowing it down to tax take, add 18% of the sum total (100)on top of that VAT. So that sort of number in off-set trades (between 50 and 100% of the value) is commonly seen in bigger defence deals
... now four tankers might not count as "big"

But whatever we paid for them, we must have achieved a 38% saving in the top line figure - just to break even! I hope to see this logic applied to SSS (slightly more military, and surely more "complex" than tankers. So can easily be fitted within the existing rhetoric).

[clinch]

Home built ships are subject to 20% VAT. Korean ships are not. Good system eh?

.

Lots of studies about multiplier effects in defence proc , home vs. abroad.

Just narrowing it down to tax take, add 18% of the sum total (100)on top of that VAT. So that sort of number in off-set trades (between 50 and 100% of the value) is commonly seen in bigger defence deals
... now four tankers might not count as "big"

But whatever we paid for them, we must have achieved a 38% saving in the top line figure - just to break even! I hope to see this logic applied to SSS (slightly more military, and surely more "complex" than tankers. So can easily be fitted within the existing rhetoric).

It's a good point. British shipyard workers pay tax and national insurance into the treasury; Korean workers don't. Redundant British shipyard workers also potentially take money out of the system in benefits.

[sea_eagle]

It's a good point. British shipyard workers pay tax and national insurance into the treasury; Korean workers don't. Redundant British shipyard workers also potentially take money out of the system in benefits.

I would hope these can be built across the UK. I never quite understand how the cost comparison/value for money equation is calculated. As you point out if built here then employment/company taxes collected flow back to the government reducing the total cost.

In addition post Brexit the exchange rate for the £ has fallen at least 20% making any import that much more expensive.

[Caribbean]

I think the rule of thumb is that 40% of whatever is paid out in wages comes back as tax or national insurance (for basic rate tax payers). Since, in the final analysis, the cost of everything is really the cost of direct or indirect wages, it then depends on how much of the wages cost is spent within the UK economy. VAT adds something onto that as well at each step in the supply chain.