Future Solid Support Ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

sorry but the SSS will also have to support amphibious operations, MCM operations etc etc. They may even have to be used tied up along side in a foreign port to support a land force like they were in Bosnia. The CVF is only PART
of Royal Fleet Auxillary operations same as its only Part of Royal Navy Operations!

Thanks, interesting. Some questions I have.

1: At Bosnia, they needed a RoRo deck? Then, why not they used Bay or chartered RoRo ship (cheap)? Also note that we now have 4 Points. Much better suited for such operation, I guess, but there could be something I missed.

2: How will the RoRo deck on SSS be used if not carrying vehicles? If it can be happily filled with stores efficiently, I have no objection "rearranging the cargo space to enable carrying vehicles", since this is not sacrificing any capability of SSS.

3: Ne need for well dock anyhow. I am completely against it. "Steel beach" will be enough (see how Points are operating mexefloats with their stern ramp at TD's site). Even a "Ocean-like" pontoon+ramp will be perfect. Pontoon can be carried only if needed. Crane to handle pontoon can handle cargo, as well, so no "waste" there.

[marktigger]

1. the vessel was before the Bays were in service and the MoD were already chartering 2x RoRo ferries run by the RFA to support the op Sea Crusader was one.
The vessels were being used as supply ships which is what they were built as giving a secure and controlled store apart from putting reefer containers does the point have large refridgerated stores or climatically controlled magazines? . The points were procured as lessons learnt for moving vehicles and equipment for ops like bosnia/kosovo
2. RoRo deck could also be used to carry containers, stores etc
3. the steel beach to a RoRo deck gives flexibility including the use of mexefloats as lighters if the SSS cannot dock like of the coasts of some 3rd world countries or where it is more secure to have vessels further offshore.

RFA Resource did the same job in Bosnia and was replaced by Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin did same job for sierra leone .

[ArmChairCivvy]

It used to be 6 tankers, 2 Fleet Solid Support, 3 Joint Sea Based Logistic vessels.

Thanks, at least I recalled the check sum (total) correctly.

[ArmChairCivvy]

3 Joint Sea Based Logistic vessels.

xav's tour video of Norfolk, Virginia gives a glimpse to what a workable scale would mean in the case of such specialised vessels.

[Aethulwulf]

It used to be 6 tankers, 2 Fleet Solid Support, 3 Joint Sea Based Logistic vessels. Tanker requirement shrunk, JSBL was reabsorbed into FSS. That's how it went from 2 to 3 ships and well dock / steel beach began to be part of the picture.

And when the concept of Sea Basing fell out of fashion, any requirement for FSS to transport/support/maintain vehicles vanished.

Without the requirement for supporting vehicles, there is no need for FSS to have a RoRo deck, well dock or steel beach.

All solid stores are moved on pallets. For amphibious ops, these can be offloaded from the FSS into LCUs and other craft using ships cranes. In fact, ships cranes can be used upto sea state 4, but a steel beach can only be used upto sea state 3. A well dock (which can be used upto sea state 4) would be a significant and expensive modification to ship that doesn't really need it to handle stores on pallets.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1. the vessel was before the Bays were in service and the MoD were already chartering 2x RoRo ferries run by the RFA to support the op Sea Crusader was one.
The vessels were being used as supply ships which is what they were built as giving a secure and controlled store apart from putting reefer containers does the point have large refridgerated stores or climatically controlled magazines? . The points were procured as lessons learnt for moving vehicles and equipment for ops like bosnia/kosovo
2. RoRo deck could also be used to carry containers, stores etc
3. the steel beach to a RoRo deck gives flexibility including the use of mexefloats as lighters if the SSS cannot dock like of the coasts of some 3rd world countries or where it is more secure to have vessels further offshore.

RFA Resource did the same job in Bosnia and was replaced by Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin did same job for sierra leone .

I think you say, with Points there, there is no need for RoRo deck on SSS?

[shark bait]

And when the concept of Sea Basing fell out of fashion, any requirement for FSS to transport/support/maintain vehicles vanished.

When did it fall out of fashion?

[Gabriele]

Never. The budget was just cut. The navy will try to get as much as it can through FSS.

[Jake1992]

It's early days and the concept designs that we can get hold of that should either a small well dock or steal beach could well be changed, but from what Iv read on it the RNs idea for these is to have one always based in the gulf to realise the bay class that's there. For that to happen effectively surely a small well dock or the ability to easily lurnch LCVPs is needed

[Gabriele]

but from what Iv read on it the RNs idea for these is to have one always based in the gulf to realise the bay class that's there.

That would be very beneficial to the amphibious component of the task group. I've called for this kind of action for a looong time now.

[Jake1992]

If a vechile deck and small well dock are included in the design along we the large flight deck a 3 Merlin hanger that are shown then these would make just great desaster relief vessels

[jedibeeftrix]

If a vechile deck and small well dock are included in the design along we the large flight deck a 3 Merlin hanger that are shown then these would make just great desaster relief vessels

re-reads the tory manifesto on attempting to redefine what counts as aid, with unilateral action offered in the event of no success.

DfID budget to fund the normal jogging operations of some RFA assets?

[ArmChairCivvy]

redefine what counts as aid, with unilateral action offered in the event of no success.

"no success" through allocating funding to multilateral efforts? Or how should one read this?

That would cover the Caribbean hurricane relief as assets are contributed even though actions "in region" are multilaterally coordinated
- next you will run against "UK aid to British Territories"[?!] as in practice that is what happens on most occasions

I think the formulation has had faltering stabilisation/ nation building in mind (in which kind of situations RFA assets would only be a small part of the bigger mix)

... you can see that I haven't read the manifesto, but nevermind

[shark bait]

DfID budget to fund the normal jogging operations of some RFA assets?

No way. The current rules are totally against funding military assets. I do think its a rule that needs to be changed though.

[jedibeeftrix]

There are still ways that we can improve the way that taxpayers’ money is used to help
the world’s most vulnerable people. We do not believe that international definitions of
development assistance always help in determining how money should be spent, on
whom and for what purpose. So we will work with like-minded countries to change the
rules so that they are updated and better reflect the breadth of our assistance around the
world. If that does not work, we will change the law to allow us to use a better definition
of development spending, while continuing to meet our 0.7 per cent target.

Agreed, that the RFA might only be one component of a more flexible reading of what is Aid, and even then that that greater flexibility may only expand to encompase a fraction of the £14b. But the will is there...

While it might be nice to change the international definition why should it matter a jot if we fail?
If [we] decide the cost of employing some dual-use infrastructure is Aid, who cares if someone else disagrees.
Do you think the British public would care?

"Oh no! the UN told us we're only really spending 0.5% of GDP on Aid, and the other 0.2% doesn't count." #sadface

Would be more than countered by the political value of BBC footage of HMA Crick moored alongside some dusty jetty, voiceover describing all the cataract operations being performed, and cleft palates repaired.

I think we'd still come out near the top of the file in both absolute and relative terms.

How flexible could we be, given that we are [going] to spend that money anyway?

1. a paramilitary peace-corp specialising in engineering support, manned by army leavers looking for a Reserves occupation more interesting than being a policeman.
2. an adjunct to the RFA specialising in medical and logistics support, subject to recall to military service in the event of X.
3. and flying logistics and security group manned by ex-raf'ers. the red cross campaign raised £20m, now we need to get some stuff from here to there. who yo gonna call?

It doesn't necessarily need to be that structured, but i'm challenging people to come up with a good explanation for intent behind those manifesto words.

[dmereifield]

https://www.contracts.mod.uk/announceme ... 7-bristol/

MARS industry day on Sept 26th, in Bristol. Coincidental timing, or might it also be part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy? Would be nice to have some joined up thinking to help industry plan....

[ArmChairCivvy]

might it also be part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy?

A lasting strategy cannot be just about one run of frigates, surely?

BTW, there was another MARS (SSS, at least then) industry day a year or two ago. After the invite to register (industry only) and an outline agenda with it nothing at all came through in the way of releases, or reporting.

[Jake1992]

Does this mean there's a chance we'll see more designs for the Mars SSS ?

[dmereifield]

A lasting strategy cannot be just about one run of frigates, surely?.

My sentiments exactly, yet everything I've read on the NSS thus far has been restricted to the T31

[RichardIC]

My sentiments exactly, yet everything I've read on the NSS thus far has been restricted to the T31

Pretty much.
There were two substantive references to MARS FSS

The future Fleet Solid Support ships are in their assessment phase and have an open, international procurement policy.

And recommendation 21

UK industry, utilising the VSb approach, should be able to compete effectively, against international competitors for RFA procurement (starting with the Fleet Solid Support programme), and should be strongly encouraged to put forward strong bids for this work

What I wanted to see was:
1. Maximising potential of current facilities to supply the RN with high quality, cost effective vessels into the medium to long term - and that includes the facilities at Rosyth used to construct the QEs
2. Give the UK shipbuilding industry renewed export credibility - because the Irish Navy can only need so many OPVs

We'll see

[Ron5]

Hard to believe that the UK can compete with Korea for the build but I'd be pretty confident that a UK company would get the design work. Bae, BMT or Rolls?

[RichardIC]

Hard to believe that the UK can compete with Korea for the build but I'd be pretty confident that a UK company would get the design work. Bae, BMT or Rolls?

You're probably right aren't you? But it makes my blood boil that we've gained the capability to build two 70,000t (or whatever) aircraft carriers and we're about to dismantle the infrastructure without even taking a tilt at giving it a future.

What will the displacement of FSS be? I'll take a wild guess at somewhere in the 35-45,000t range. Nowhere else in the UK can handle that anymore. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance model worked for the QEs and it could get better and better and work for FSS, as per Recommendation 21, if it were given the chance.

I'm not banking on it though.

[shark bait]

Sounds unlikely UK can compete, but they did for the Polar Ship, so maybe with another specialist job they can.

Of course it would be nice to see them go the the UK, but the contract need to go to whoever offers the best value from an international competition.

Design in UK, build in Korea looks like a good model to me.

[dmereifield]

If this one goes abroad, like the Tides did, the Unions and the SNP will have a field day. Joined up thinking required, as part of a wider manufacturing strategy, if it needs subsidising to keep the work then so be it, but not from the MoD budget.....Innovate UK or some other funding stream should pick up the tab....

[ArmChairCivvy]

Joined up thinking required, as part of a wider manufacturing strategy

Indeed.

Remember how the army wanted a simple metal box - on wheels or tracks or both - but did not get it. And now, much, much later the UK industry has seen its own demise and has been reduced to assembly and integration.