UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
clinch
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby clinch » 05 Mar 2019, 12:36

shark bait wrote:How does this sound;

"Call it complex, mandate UK build, pay twice as much, have 2 fewer frigates."

That is what all the comments above are advocating.


Well, we could build everything abroad, export highly paid jobs, leaving Brits to work zero-hours contracts at McDonalds. Zero tax take means even less to spend on new ships.

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 05 Mar 2019, 12:44

Surely you can recognise that as a false dichotomy? there are other options.

How many UK bids are there?
What does one suppler create?
What does a monopoly achieve?

I wonder how many of the same commentators that berate BAE for having a monopoly, are now advocating an monopoly for the SSS.....
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 466
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Scimitar54 » 05 Mar 2019, 13:17

It is those who are adjudicating the various tenders from the interested companies and then "awarding" the contracts that cannot take a wider view of the actual benefits or otherwise of each bid. Looking at the bottom line only is very easy, but the "easy" decision is almost always the wrong one! If you do not take the widest view possible, then you are not someone who should be taking that decision. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 May 2019, 09:44


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 20 May 2019, 11:21

Those two have probably got order books so full they haven't got room for SSS within the UK's desired timeframe, assuming we still have one.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Simon82 » 26 May 2019, 12:15

Definitely preferred the look of the old forward bridge design.

Image

Not that appearance is particularly important or reflective of capability... Although I do recall it had an interesting well deck, which I’m sure would have it’s uses.

SW1
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 26 May 2019, 12:19

Is it just me or does that image have a passing resemblance to a variation of the tide vessels.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Tempest414 » 26 May 2019, 12:47

it is more than passing

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 26 May 2019, 13:30

Simon82 wrote:Definitely preferred the look of the old forward bridge design.

Image

Not that appearance is particularly important or reflective of capability... Although I do recall it had an interesting well deck, which I’m sure would have it’s uses.


IMO this is the design to go for it could then be used as the base for the LPD and LSD replacements as the design lay out lends itself really well to the laters.

For me this is what needs to happens across the board with in the 3 forces to use common base designs where possible to reduce through life costs.

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 08:07

Worth noting none of those images are indicative of the actual ships. They're images produced by DE&S not the manufacturers.

Is there any particular operational benefit having the bridge forward or aft?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 May 2019, 08:38

shark bait wrote:Is there any particular operational benefit having the bridge forward or aft?
A bridge foward design would be preferable if the FSS is to form the basis of a common hull for other RFA vessels going forward.

IF the money was in place, theoretically, a universal bridge forward design could be suitable for the 2 FLSS vessels, 3 FSS vessels and 3 Bay replacements. It would make a lot of sense and provide a solid industrial strategy that UK shipbuilders could mould their business models around but unfortunately the money simply isn't there.

If HMG was really serious about a credible National Shipbuilding Strategy that would provide a renaissance for UK shipbuilding, this would be a very good place to start.

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 08:52

That doesn't sound feasible. Is there any example of a platform being modified to support a welldeck?

My impression is welldecks are major structural features, and as such requires a clean design.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 May 2019, 09:38

shark bait wrote:That doesn't sound feasible. Is there any example of a platform being modified to support a welldeck?

My impression is welldecks are major structural features, and as such requires a clean design.
The initial FSS concepts incorporated a floodable well dock.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -ship.html

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 29 May 2019, 09:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:The initial FSS concepts incorporated a floodable well dock.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -ship.html


You're confusing "concept art" with detailed design, which is something that happens on here all the time.

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 10:01

It does, and I've seen nothing that indicates a well dock is a requirement for the FSS, which is probably for the best. The FSS should bollw the Tides by becoming lean ships fully focused on the huge task of sustaining the carrier groups. To that end a welldeck is superfluous.

While changes to the super structure are 'easy' changes to the hull and machinery needed to add a well dock are massive. I expect that the time for a clean sheet.

If the FSS has to be common with anything it should be the Tides, not an LPD.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1641
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 29 May 2019, 11:02

RichardIC wrote:You're confusing "concept art" with detailed design
Who produced the 'concept art'? Are you suggesting a floodable well dock isn't possible? I don't really understand your point.
shark bait wrote:The FSS should bollw the Tides by becoming lean ships fully focused on the huge task of sustaining the carrier groups.
It sounds like you are suggesting building the entire RFA fleet around servicing a single CVF with around 24 F35's? If so expect further cuts.

What about sustaining the LiTM group over an extended period? A small well dock could be an extremely useful feature and take the pressure off the rest of the Amphibious logistic fleet.

Three FSS vessels each with 2 LCM's in a side by side configuration would really help with versatility and remove the risk of the loss of a single vessel ending an entire operation. We must remember that the FSS vessels are there support Amphibious ops as well as the CSG.
shark bait wrote:If the FSS has to be common with anything it should be the Tides, not an LPD.
Who mentioned LPD's? I suggested the LSD(A)'s not the LPD's.

Commonality with the Tides could very well have been a good idea but the time line was wrong with the CVF builds, at least in the context of a wider NSS strategy.

Well docks aside, my main point is about the lack of a sustainable industrial strategy. The MOD seem to lurch from one idea to the next without fully considering the consequences down the line. As far as UK shipbuilding is concerned it is use it or lose it and if the FSS contracts go abroad and the FSS vessels are simple RoRo conversions the UK is really to struggle to resurrect enough of a shipbuilding capacity to replace the Amphibs in the 2030's. But maybe that's HMG's long term planning anyway.....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 29 May 2019, 11:14

The RN's priority has to be the support of the CSG above all other surface operations. The two planned FSS need to be tailored to be the most efficient at supporting this formation but will obviously be able to support the LiTM/ARG. I have little faith in the whole FLSS idea and do not think it should have any bearing on the design of the FSS.

I agree that these two vessels should be built in this country but the responsibility for where they are built rests mainly with the Government. Yes a single UK yards has submitted an interest in bidding for these vessels but it will be competing with overseas yards. The Government has to decide how much weight it is willing to give to the wider benefits of building in the UK as against the cheaper bids of overseas yards. So it is down to politics.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1638
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 29 May 2019, 11:25

shark bait wrote:If the FSS has to be common with anything it should be the Tides, not an LPD.

Seems reasonable - iterations of the Tides for fleet supply and iterations of the Bays for amphibious support. Improving medical facilities and providing modest aviation facilities (2-6 helicopters, for instance) across the board would mitigate the loss of RFA Argus and allow for individual deployments with small numbers of helicopters, or fleet / ferry operations with quite large numbers
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5826
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 11:45

Poiuytrewq wrote:you are suggesting building the entire RFA fleet around servicing a single CVF with around 24 F35's? If so expect further cuts.
What about sustaining the LiTM group over an extended period?

Yes, pretty much. Supporting high intensity carrier operations is a huge task and will take a lot of resource to achieve. That should be the focus of the RFA.

Supporting an amphibious group is no different, they need food, water, fuel and ammunition just like a carrier group, and a well dock is not required for this. Unless the Navy want to load it's stores ships full of vehicles and use them in the amphibious assault (dumb idea), there is no need for a welldock. Cranes and helicopters shall suffice.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 May 2019, 16:16

Poiuytrewq wrote: sustaining the LiTM group over an extended period? A small well dock could be an extremely useful feature and take the pressure off the rest of the Amphibious logistic fleet.
Why not a steel beach... a major difference in the structural design (demands)?
Poiuytrewq wrote:We must remember that the FSS vessels are there support Amphibious ops as well as the CSG
That is an open question... Bays were originally designated as (L)ogistics and only commonality across NATO changed that - as the others, in the main, do not have any such
Poiuytrewq wrote:if the FSS contracts go abroad and the FSS vessels are simple RoRo conversions the UK is really to struggle to resurrect enough of a shipbuilding capacity to replace the Amphibs in the 2030's.
Easy to agree with
Lord Jim wrote:and do not think it should have any bearing on the design of the FSS.
I think there isn't any logical connection from FLSS to FSS... except lots of the same alphabet soup?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3379
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 29 May 2019, 22:35

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think there isn't any logical connection from FLSS to FSS... except lots of the same alphabet soup?

Exactly , the design of the FSS should not be altered to provide specific support capabilities to the LiTM, but rather be tailored for operating with the CSG.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 29 May 2019, 22:43

Lord Jim wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think there isn't any logical connection from FLSS to FSS... except lots of the same alphabet soup?

Exactly , the design of the FSS should not be altered to provide specific support capabilities to the LiTM, but rather be tailored for operating with the CSG.


I bring this vessel up quiet a bit but wouldn’t something like the Karel doorman be better suited to support the LiTM and as you say leave the SSS to concentrate on the CSG. As pointed out to support a large carrier in high intensity ops requires the SSS to be designed dedicated to them and not have the design wonder off down other paths, but the Karel doorman seems to have that mix capability needed to support amphibious ops. In this case wouldn’t replacing the waves with 2 of these hit the sweet spot the RFA needs with support vessels.

2-3 SSS for carrier ops
4 tides for carrier ops and secondary wider fleet RAS
2 Karel doorman for LiTM ops and secondary wider fleet RAS

SW1
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 29 May 2019, 23:00

Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think there isn't any logical connection from FLSS to FSS... except lots of the same alphabet soup?

Exactly , the design of the FSS should not be altered to provide specific support capabilities to the LiTM, but rather be tailored for operating with the CSG.


I bring this vessel up quiet a bit but wouldn’t something like the Karel doorman be better suited to support the LiTM and as you say leave the SSS to concentrate on the CSG. As pointed out to support a large carrier in high intensity ops requires the SSS to be designed dedicated to them and not have the design wonder off down other paths, but the Karel doorman seems to have that mix capability needed to support amphibious ops.



Something like karel doorman would almost be like a merging of a bay with the old rover class which were keep on various fwd stations for much of there lives. It’s a potential concept I think has much merit in the regional engagement and security environment going fwd, if investment is made in the offboard systems and development of different doctrine across a number of domains. But I think too many would hyperventilate on soap boxes at where this concept would lead to with ship numbers and traditional ways of doing things to make it even remotely likely.

But that would be separate to a solid stores requirement for the principle fighter element which is the carrier group for that a dedicated stores ship is needed and if it’s a version of the tide then mores the better.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1393
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 30 May 2019, 07:24

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think there isn't any logical connection from FLSS to FSS... except lots of the same alphabet soup?

Exactly , the design of the FSS should not be altered to provide specific support capabilities to the LiTM, but rather be tailored for operating with the CSG.


I bring this vessel up quiet a bit but wouldn’t something like the Karel doorman be better suited to support the LiTM and as you say leave the SSS to concentrate on the CSG. As pointed out to support a large carrier in high intensity ops requires the SSS to be designed dedicated to them and not have the design wonder off down other paths, but the Karel doorman seems to have that mix capability needed to support amphibious ops.



Something like karel doorman would almost be like a merging of a bay with the old rover class which were keep on various fwd stations for much of there lives. It’s a potential concept I think has much merit in the regional engagement and security environment going fwd, if investment is made in the offboard systems and development of different doctrine across a number of domains. But I think too many would hyperventilate on soap boxes at where this concept would lead to with ship numbers and traditional ways of doing things to make it even remotely likely.

But that would be separate to a solid stores requirement for the principle fighter element which is the carrier group for that a dedicated stores ship is needed and if it’s a version of the tide then mores the better.


I see the Karel doorman’s more of a modern fort class, I bring them as Iv seen people on here talk about upgrading the waves to allow them to do more for the fleet while keeping RAS ability Karel doorman fits this nicely.

If done right a set up of 1 Albion, 1 LSS and 1 Karel doorman each west and east of the suez doing there own thing but being able to come together would be a good boost for our selfs and our allies in these areas. It would also leave the SSS to be what they need to be, which is dedicated to the CSG

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 May 2019, 10:39

in high intensity ops requires the SSS to be designed dedicated
yep, add a fraction to the one (could be +1.0) as the SSS will also need topping up - and heavens know from how far
would almost be like a merging of a bay with the old rover class

+
But that would be separate to a solid stores requirement

=
Jake1992 wrote:I see the Karel doorman’s more of a modern fort class


The RN has decided otherwise (not to build a new mongrel, but to go for the operational rqrmnt and through near-commercial design get the cost down... to make the numbers!)


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992, shark bait and 21 guests