Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

Argus struggled for years with insuficient de salinator capicty to produce fresh water to supply the ship and all the extra needs of the PCRS. The modules will also need to be climatically stable so would require aircon/heating also which would add to the domestic requirements of a facility. hence ad hoc conversions are going to be difficult. One thing that has been mentioned is a Joint disaser relief/PCRS vessel jointly funded by MoD and DFID!

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

arfah wrote:Bio waste (used swabs up to body parts) requires an incinerator.
True, hadn't thought about that one, I suppose that is something that is difficult to blot onto a ship.
marktigger wrote:One thing that has been mentioned is a Joint disaser relief/PCRS vessel jointly funded by MoD and DFID!
I think a real hospital ship should be funded for disaster relief.
PCRS should then be onboard the amphibious vessels such as the SSS.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

plus in this day and age of repatriation what do you do with the dead?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

23 Pioneer used to deal with that side of things.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Image

HNLMS Karel Doorman has finally been handed over to the Royal Netherlands Navy.

With the support ship and sea base concepts now rolled into one , I think a similar design could be very useful to the UK
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

I'd say anglified versions of the dutch ship would be a better version....bare ship built then fitted out in UK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:I'd say anglified versions of the dutch ship would be a better version....bare ship built then fitted out in UK
If you would do it that way, it would sail straight to the UK from Romania (Galata ship yard)... sure, some royalties would sail to the NL.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:I'd say anglified versions of the dutch ship would be a better version....bare ship built then fitted out in UK
That could be a very reasonable way of doing things. We will have to see how the model works out with the tides, but it looks promising. A good way to may sure we get them on time and at a reasonable price. I sure our friends in Korea would jump at the opportunity again.

however once upon a time the government committed to building them in the UK......
... the Joint Sea Based Logistic ships are considerably more complex than the tankers and indeed the Solid Support ships, to the extent whereby we have put those inside the boundaries of the scope that will go exclusively to the UK yards. The Solid Support ships, in our judgment, are a simpler ship—they are more complicated than tankers but they are a simpler ship—and I think there is a judgement to be made at the time [...] about how we treat those.[45]
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... /30506.htm

They stated the sea base would definitely be built in the UK, and the solid ship might be. Now those 2 programmes have merged so unsure where that leaves us. They will probably call it a different program and ignore those commitments so it can be built cheaper, which isn't such a bad thing.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

@sharkbait Damen takes over BaE's yards on the clyde excellent idea!

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

A word of caution but the Dutch, from what i have heard, are not entirely happy with the KD. A friend of mine is particularly critical of her - a poor jack of all trades and absolute master of none is the impression he provides. I personally have always liked the KD and its concept but it would seem that those charged with using her are not so easily won over.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

True it does try to be a lot of things, but the UK's solution won't be delivering fuel so it should have more space and be less compromised. The KD also has an impressive sensor suite in that integrated mast, something I doubt the UK will bother with, it does seem a little OTT for an auxiliary.

I do think its important to design a replenishment ship first, and then try fit in other roles by adding spaces like a large hanger and mission spaces, in a way that doesnt comprimeise the origional mission. I think most additions will complement a supply ship quite well, such as the hanger and landing craft can all be useful in the supply role. Most important thing is those heavy replenishment masts though.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:RORO, can't easily fit into the design, exc. from a dedicated deck, to the side (small capacity)
....................Steel beach & mexeflotes hoisted down by a crane... sounds like a bridge too far
Continuing from another thread.

I have to disagree there....


Image

The above image is from the BMT study I spoke about. I don't think A configuration similar to the one above would be too much of a compromise to role of a support ship. It is a large long flat deck which can either be used for vehicles, dry stores or other mission space depending on the role. Since it is just a big space that can be filled with dry store, it can be used in the supply role with little compromise.

From there it would take only a little bit of space to add a steal beach, which opens up a whole bunch of options. Vehicles could be disembarked by loading on the mexeflotes like ocean does. I think that is reasonable, but a well dock is probably a step too far as that would drastically alter the entire design of the ship.
Or the option I prefer is self deploying vehicles that drive straight off the ship into the water.

The specification now has the role of the old sea base concept merged into it, so I think such features are likely, especially since 'large configurable mission bays' are particularly on trend at the moment.

Image
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: the UK's solution won't be delivering fuel so it should have more space and be less compromised. The KD also has an impressive sensor suite in that integrated mast, something I doubt the UK will bother with, it does seem a little OTT for an auxiliary.

I do think its important to design a replenishment ship first, and then try fit in other roles by adding spaces like a large hanger and mission spaces, in a way that doesnt comprimeise the origional mission.
I think I agree more with previous comment from you, than the latest. And share the thoughts of UnionJack (above).

That Figure XII design figured prominently for the Canadian JSS, but did not happen. Even though their scale is similar to that of the Dutch forces, calling for multi-mission capability by the very few units (that can be afforded; only scale makes specialisation affordable).

But I think this is a philosophical question: I lean towards sea repl vs you attach more weight to also supporting ops on the beach and beyond.

BTW: The Fort that is configured as per the schematic will have the fuel tank space available (redundant) when all the new tankers join the fleet. I have always been of the opinion that its midship should be reconfigured, to give the RN (would not be an Auxiliary anymore) an Arsenal Ship of its own.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: That Figure XII design figured prominently for the Canadian JSS, but did not happen. Even though their scale is similar to that of the Dutch forces, calling for multi-mission capability by the very few units (that can be afforded; only scale makes specialisation affordable).
Indeed it is, obviously for our needs we would replace the fuel stores with more solid stores since with have the tides. I do believe caution is needed for multirole assets because it is easy to end up with something that is rubish as many roles.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: But I think this is a philosophical question: I lean towards sea repl vs you attach more weight to also supporting ops on the beach and beyond.
I think it is too. The MSRS program originally wanted a sea base, that would be useful in supporting amphibious operations. Unfortunately due to cuts the sea base has been merged into the replenishment ship, which I think is reasonable.

Reasonable because both roles focus on the transfer of stores, just one from a mast, and the other from a ramp. It also makes the ships vastly more useful for humanitarian response that they are increasingly used for.

As I have said, I don't think adding some amphibious support capability will compromise the design too much. I would still want a ship very much designed to excell at replenishment, but just with a ramp on the back, which I don't think is too much to ask.
@LandSharkUK

Lugzy
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 09 Sep 2015, 21:23
Mongolia

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lugzy »

@ACC , tbh if we don't start to think out side the box and incorporate multi roll designs to cover Other duties , then we will see retirement with out any replacement and a drop in capabilities , the gov will not splash the cash end of . We need to stop believing they will .

it's not about what ideally should be done it's more of a case of what can we get out out of a bad situation , basically making do . I believe there will be no Albion replacement and oceans is obvious, so what can we do ???

The Mars SSS is still on the drawing board , the navy need a replacment for the forts , so this program will probably go forward , the early concept shows a limited amphibious capability already included this says to me maybe the RN were looking into incoorperating this feature into the new vessels anyway , I'm sure if the thought is there this design could be expanded on to help fill the gap left by the Albion's retirement , By pitching this as a Albion and fort replacement I'm sure would be more appetising to the Gov.

although individually the proposed MARS SSS vessel would not be able to do the job of a Albion class vessel, using a few Mars SSS vessels I believe would rebalance the situation in case of an emergency .
Now I'm not saying this is the perfect answer or ideal , but I can't see the navy getting another large vessel tender being financed after the carrier , type 26 , astute , tide class tankers , OPVs , I just can't see it happening . Mars SSS will be the last tender in my opinon until the trident replacment , so we need to be clever in its design to make it adaptable so we can get the most from these vessels .

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Pseudo »

Since there ships will be undoubtedly useful and used for the delivery of foreign aid I think that a fourth ship should be purchased from that budget, and then we should look at replacing Argus with two hospital ships on a fifty-fifty basis.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Pseudo wrote:Since there ships will be undoubtedly useful and used for the delivery of foreign aid I think that a fourth ship should be purchased from that budget, and then we should look at replacing Argus with two hospital ships on a fifty-fifty basis.
I agree a fourth would be beneficial, certainly for foreign aid and low intensity patrols. That would require some work with the RFA as they struggle to keep the current fleet going.

However buying it out of the foreign aid budget is totally out of the question, buying military equipment is totally against their rules. A hospital ship may be feasible out of the foreign aid budget, and we should probably have one of those.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:However buying it out of the foreign aid budget is totally out of the question, buying military equipment is totally against their rules. A hospital ship may be feasible out of the foreign aid budget, and we should probably have one of those.
Absolutely, I'm just thinking about some sort of ideal world where we'd have joined up thinking and a realistic appreciation of the military involvement in aid delivery.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Pseudo wrote: Absolutely, I'm just thinking about some sort of ideal world where we'd have joined up thinking and a realistic appreciation of the military involvement in aid delivery.
I think we do. The aid budget has always reimbursed the MOD for the use of their assets when delivering aid.

But we shouldn't purchasing military equipment from an aid budget, that is fundamentally wrong and not the kind of transparency we would expect from our democracy.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:I think we do. The aid budget has always reimbursed the MOD for the use of their assets when delivering aid.

But we shouldn't purchasing military equipment from an aid budget, that is fundamentally wrong and not the kind of transparency we would expect from our democracy.
I don't particularly see why RFA operated assets that are used in support of both the RN and foreign aid delivery wouldn't be transparent or desirable. I'm a big supporter of our commitment to foreign aid, but I think that the ability to effectively deliver aid is often as important as the aid itself. Particularly if it assists in the effective delivery of aid on a multinational basis. I would like to think that being a democratic nation with relatively transparent accountability is what would allow for such mutually beneficial joint funding without it becoming a licence for the military budget to raid the foreign aid budget.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Pseudo wrote: I don't particularly see why RFA operated assets that are used in support of both the RN and foreign aid delivery wouldn't be transparent or desirable.
Because before anything else it is a military asset, that has a secondary role of delivering humanitarian aid.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with buying military equipment out of aid money.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Pseudo »

shark bait wrote:Because before anything else it is a military asset, that has a secondary role of delivering humanitarian aid.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with buying military equipment out of aid money.
Even if it improves our ability to deliver aid in the long term?

Post Reply