Future Solid Support Ship

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, the immediate need was always the old Fort I’s so not surprised - Fort Victoria will be limited in the size of crates it can transfer, but it’s capable, still has 10years of life left,?and I think has give good service as a platform EoS (could be more so if paired with a Bay).

Longer term the RN can look at other opportunities with the cash.

[Poiuytrewq]

...the immediate need was always the old Fort I’s so not surprised...

Agreed, this was always the priority.

...still has 10years of life left...

At least, probably more.

....I think has give good service as a platform EoS (could be more so if paired with a Bay).

Absolutely and with the addition of a FLSS, a Tide, a couple of T31's and perhaps even an OPV or two it becomes it basis for the Gavin Williamson inspired Littoral Strike Group.

Such a presence EoS would be a serious undertaking but not necessarily unaffordable at 2%-2.25% of GDP.

[Repulse]

Absolutely and with the addition of a FLSS, a Tide, a couple of T31's and perhaps even an OPV or two it becomes it basis for the Gavin Williamson inspired Littoral Strike Group.

I’d argue that just RFA Victoria paired with a Bay, already gives a solid core of a LSG (or HADR response group), the former brings fuel, stores and hangar space for 3 Merlins/Wildcats; the latter a well dock, 2-4 LCVPs (or similar), hanger for 1 Wildcat, 1,150lms and space for 350 (700 in overload).

[RetroSicotte]

I had theorised for some time that the third FSS was being killed off to make way for the two LSS'. That may still be the case.

[Jake1992]

Do we know how many competing designs there are for the SSS and by who ?

[Poiuytrewq]

I’d argue that just RFA Victoria paired with a Bay, already gives a solid core of a LSG (or HADR response group)...

Potentially yes but the whole Littoral Strike Group concept is so vague at present it is impossible to say for sure. It depends on the scale of the ambition and at present we can only guess. More details needed.

1,150lms and space for 350 (700 in overload).

The Bays have extra space for overload accommodation but not enough for an extra EMF of 350. If a Bay was to utilise the 700 overload capacity as well as the RUBB hanger, the available LM's are drastically reduced.

For comparison the Prevail Point based FLSS has a total complement of around 400 as well 2400lm's of deck space including a 4 Merlin hanger and two Chinook capable landing spots. Add in the twin misson areas capable of launching/recovering 11m RHIB's and LCVP's along with the ability to launch LCAC's and load mexefloates and LCU's/LCVP's via the stern ramp and it's a pretty impressive platform.

The FLSS concept might not be perfect it's a lot of capability for a very modest outlay.

[Tempest414]

Lets not get carried away of that 400 EMF only 200 will be fighting troops the rest will be there for support when you take a Bay class it has a crew of 80 plus 350 troops = 430 doing the the same job less the helo support but as we have so few helos any way it will be hard to deploy more than 2 at anytime

[Poiuytrewq]

Lets not get carried away of that 400 EMF only 200 will be fighting troops the rest will be there for support when you take a Bay class it has a crew of 80 plus 350 troops = 430 doing the the same job less the helo support but as we have so few helos any way it will be hard to deploy more than 2 at anytime

100% Agreed. It's a total complement figure not an EMF capacity.

in real terms a non-overload EMF capacity for a FLSS should be in the region of 220 with 4 helicopters and multiple small craft, LCAC's/LCVP's etc. Still perfectly satisfactory for a wide range of deployments.

[Repulse]

Poiuytrewq, we should probably move it across to another thread, but the point I’m making is we already have two platforms that when combined can already do what the FLSS is expected to do (and probably more), plus are assets that add to the war fighting capability of the RN; why do we need the FLSS?

[Lord Jim]

Having only two FSSS, does impose limits, but as long as they are both synced to the Carriers it shouldn't be an issue. The limitation being that the FSSS are only available for operation with the Carriers.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Having only two FSSS, does impose limits, but as long as they are both synced to the Carriers it shouldn't be an issue. The limitation being that the FSSS are only available for operation with the Carriers.

Is one FSSS per CVTF enough? In other words, When one FSSS is in long refit, can RN conduct Carrier Strike, with only one FSSS left?

[Poiuytrewq]

Having only two FSSS, does impose limits, but as long as they are both synced to the Carriers it shouldn't be an issue. The limitation being that the FSSS are only available for operation with the Carriers.

Is one FSSS per CVTF enough? In other words, When one FSSS is in long refit, can RN conduct Carrier Strike, with only one FSSS left?

What about Fort Victoria taking some of the strain when one of the FSS's is in refit?

If the CSG will be able to operate in 2021/2022 why not in future with 2x FSS and Fort Victoria?

[Aethulwulf]

Having only two FSSS, does impose limits, but as long as they are both synced to the Carriers it shouldn't be an issue. The limitation being that the FSSS are only available for operation with the Carriers.

Is one FSSS per CVTF enough? In other words, When one FSSS is in long refit, can RN conduct Carrier Strike, with only one FSSS left?

What about Fort Victoria taking some of the strain when one of the FSS's is in refit?

If the CSG will be able to operate in 2021/2022 why not in future with 2x FSS and Fort Victoria?

FSS is critical to sustained high intensity operations. FSS should be able to transfer munitions and other stores to QEC at approximately 4 times the speed of Fort Victoria. So, for example, a 5 hour RAS by FSS would take 20 hours using Fort Victoria (which is not feasible).

Fort Victoria would limit the QEC to only conducting low intensity operations where not many missiles and bombs are being used. So fine for +95% of operations, but not for war fighting against peer or near peer opposition.

[Poiuytrewq]

FSS is critical to sustained high intensity operations

So with such a limited number of FSS the easiest way to neutralise a British CSG is to sink or damage the either one or both of the FSS's?

Thereby making the FSS one of the UK's highest value targets in a peer on peer or near peer conflict?

Once again, our strength in depth appears to be virtually none existent.

[Lord Jim]

The same goes for the Carrier. With two FSS one would be available to work with each available carrier. We are never going to have both Carrier at sea except in the direst of conflicts such as a full blown WWIII, as they are going to be in a planned refit rotation. The same should happen to the FSS. If it hits the fan then sure the dockyards can go into overdrive and get the second carrier operational, but the same would happen to the off duty FSS. Yes we have not got much depth in the RN or RFA or any of the services.

That is the obvious result of every SDR since 1990 and what was it called, "Front Line First". This is where we fall into the all the eggs in one basket doctrine. No longer will the RN operate singletons in a conflict. We will provide NATO with a CSG instead of contributing to its various standing forces, other nations will have to pick up the slack. The CSG will have a minimum of two T-26, two T-45 and moist likely an Astute SSN plus a FSS and Tanker. Ideally additional Escorts would be provided by our Allies, and with the ARG if ever used as a whole, I would expect the Dutch and Norwegians to play a major part in its protection with the Former probably being in charge, and also providing support platforms though we might be able to contribute a Tanker if needed.

Having a third FSs would give us some depth, and Fort Victoria will already provide that for any non CSG operations, and if we are lucky we might get a third new vessel, maybe tailored more to support the ARG, but also capable of operating in support of the CSG if needed. I personally just want to see the initial two FSS ordered and under construction as soon as possible and leave the third for another time.

[Timmymagic]

So with such a limited number of FSS the easiest way to neutralise a British CSG is to sink or damage the either one or both of the FSS's?

Thereby making the FSS one of the UK's highest value targets in a peer on peer or near peer conflict?

Once again, our strength in depth appears to be virtually none existent.

We've got more strength in depth in auxiliaries than any other navy on earth...including the USN.

The UK has 6 Fleet Oilers. The USNS has 15 Henry Kaiser Class...

The UK has 3 Fleet Solid Support Ships. The USNS has 16 (14 Lewis and Clark, 2 Supply) and 2 are on the way out.

[Poiuytrewq]

We've got more strength in depth in auxiliaries than any other navy on earth...including the USN.

The UK has 6 Fleet Oilers. The USNS has 15 Henry Kaiser Class...

The UK has 3 Fleet Solid Support Ships. The USNS has 16 (14 Lewis and Clark, 2 Supply) and 2 are on the way out.

No argument with the numbers but if the FSS order is cut to two how does the 4xTide, 2xWave, 2xFSS and Fort Victoria balance work going forward as RN transitions from the CVS's to the CVF's within the CSG? The escorts are also moving from a mainly distributed singleton deployment system to potentially more of a forward based setup.

Is current planning on the right track to enable these transitions and also retain sufficient strength in depth?

[ArmChairCivvy]

how does the 4xTide, 2xWave, 2xFSS and Fort Victoria balance work going forward as RN transitions from the CVS's to the CVF's within the CSG?

Drop the Waves off the list (for other uses?) and should work fine with the 1.4 carriers we will have (available).
-FLSSs, despite the impressive capacity cited abovethread, should not be considered supply ships, but rather lilly-pads (littoral control; strike seems a bit far fetched?) and in emergencies (~ full throttle) helo & other asset ferries

[Repulse]

As the RN moves to a 2 CSG (with integrated amphibious ships) in rotation and the remainder structured around forward based assets - how does this impact the RFA?

I can’t see the requirement for solid store transport stopping at 2 - whilst I’m suggesting an additional two JSBLs (with a secondary FSS role), if the FSS had an enlarged flight deck, hangar space for 3-4 Merlins and 2-4 davits for LCVP type craft, then in my view the FLSS requirement would go away - if FSS numbers were increased to 3 or 4.

The assets at most threat seem to be the two waves.

[RichardIC]

then in my view the FLSS requirement would go away

The FLSS requirement went away when Gavin Williamson got sacked.

[Poiuytrewq]

-FLSSs, despite the impressive capacity cited abovethread, should not be considered supply ships, but rather lilly-pads (littoral control; strike seems a bit far fetched?) and in emergencies (~ full throttle) helo & other asset ferries

Not wanting to get hung up on jargon but I do believe the terms Littoral Strike Ship and Littoral Strike Group are misleading bearing in mind the level of capability proposed. Littoral Support Ships may be more appropriate. As for the Littoral Strike Group, we have no idea what that looks like yet so we shall have to wait to see if the designation matches the capability.

I can’t see the requirement for solid store transport stopping at 2 - whilst I’m suggesting an additional two JSBLs (with a secondary FSS role), if the FSS had an enlarged flight deck, hangar space for 3-4 Merlins and 2-4 davits for LCVP type craft, then in my view the FLSS requirement would go away - if FSS numbers were increased to 3 or 4.

We can agree here. What you propose is basically what the original FSS concept appears to include.

Something roughly along the lines of,

- 200mX28m
- Four 5 ton RAS rigs
- 3 Merlin Hangers (possibly Chinook capable with rotors folded)
- 2 Merlin flight deck
- Small well dock suitable for a single LCU
- A vehicle deck of an indeterminate size
- Space for LCVP's (possibly deployed via deck crane)

. Slightly modified, the above vessels would make an excellent option for the FLSS. By removing 2 of the RAS the hanger could be enlarged and moved forward allowing a capacity of up to 6 Merlins and a flight deck with 2 Chinook capable landing spots. Four davit deployed LCVP sized craft could easily be included and the vehicle deck could be expanded in size and EMF accommodation added if required.

So it would amount to a build of 4 hulls, 2 FSS and 2 FLSS comprised of two distinct variants of the same basic design and sharing lots of commonality, giving RN/RFA welcome extra strength in depth. It would provide vital extra work for the UK's struggling shipbuilding industry and enable a viable core of yards to continue to operate into the 2030's when the Amphibious fleet will be renewed.

As ever the main stumbling block is the funding. As far as we know the combined FSS and FLSS budgets are in the region of £1.2bn. To build the four vessels proposed above, it would in all likelihood cost between £1.6bn and £1.8bn. A difference of effectively two T31's.

It's all a question of priorities.

[Poiuytrewq]

then in my view the FLSS requirement would go away

The FLSS requirement went away when Gavin Williamson got sacked.

Have you any credible source to back that up?

[RichardIC]

Have you any credible source to back that up?

Nope. But apart from a single speech and a few Tweets by people no longer in-post what's the evidence for it being a requirement?

Which project team does it sit under? Are any contracts out to tender? If you do a search for FLSS on the MoD website (which I've wasted 5 seconds doing) you get no returns.

Seriously, what's the evidence that it's still a thing?

[Jake1992]

We can agree here. What you propose is basically what the original FSS concept appears to include.

Something roughly along the lines of,

- 200mX28m
- Four 5 ton RAS rigs
- 3 Merlin Hangers (possibly Chinook capable with rotors folded)
- 2 Merlin flight deck
- Small well dock suitable for a single LCU
- A vehicle deck of an indeterminate size
- Space for LCVP's (possibly deployed via deck crane)

. Slightly modified, the above vessels would make an excellent option for the FLSS. By removing 2 of the RAS the hanger could be enlarged and moved forward allowing a capacity of up to 6 Merlins and a flight deck with 2 Chinook capable landing spots. Four davit deployed LCVP sized craft could easily be included and the vehicle deck could be expanded in size and EMF accommodation added if required.

So it would amount to a build of 4 hulls, 2 FSS and 2 FLSS comprised of two distinct variants of the same basic design and sharing lots of commonality, giving RN/RFA welcome extra strength in depth. It would provide vital extra work for the UK's struggling shipbuilding industry and enable a viable core of yards to continue to operate into the 2030's when the Amphibious fleet will be renewed.

This is what Iv always said we should base the future LPD / LSD replacements on, if done right we could end up with 9 vessels of 3-4 different classes based on the same parent design giving a great deal of commonality for the build process.

I though that design though was said to be between 205m -215m by 30-32m, which would make more sense since it was craming a lot on top of the large SS requirement needed.

[Poiuytrewq]

Have you any credible source to back that up?

Nope. But apart from a single speech and a few Tweets by people no longer in-post what's the evidence for it being a requirement?

Two separate things. With the complete lack of embarked aviation on the LPD's and Ocean now decommissioned the requirement clearly exists. The FLSS was Gavin Williamson's attempt to meet the requirement with the funds available but it could be achieved in other ways.

With the Bays tied up in the Gulf/Carribean and also now starting to experiment in the MCM role it is difficult to see how the CHF is going to operate if the CSG is active without additional platforms being procured.

This is what Iv always said we should base the future LPD / LSD replacements on, if done right we could end up with 9 vessels of 3-4 different classes based on the same parent design giving a great deal of commonality for the build process.

Maybe, but one step at a time.....we are a long way away from replacing the Amphibs.

I though that design though was said to be between 205m -215m by 30-32m, which would make more sense since it was craming a lot on top of the large SS requirement needed.

I was estimating in deliberately vague terms as I have never been able to find any published specification for that FSS concept. If you have one I would interested to see it.