Future Solid Support Ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

Is SSS replacement for Albions?
This mean, good command capability is needed (well-dock is secondary, because anyway SSS's well dock is for logistic landing, which is now covered by Bay, not Albions)

[Aethulwulf]

In fact, ship's cranes can be used upto sea state 4, but a steel beach can only be used upto sea state 3

Wasn't Ocean's only suitable up to Sea State 2?

Ocean does not have a steel beach. She has a ramp and could deploy a floating pontoon.

A good example of a steel beach is at the stern of the Dutch Joint Supply Ship. It allows landing craft to 'dock' with the ship directly, without the expense (or full protection) of a flooding well dock.

[benny14]

Is SSS replacement for Albions?
This mean, good command capability is needed (well-dock is secondary, because anyway SSS's well dock is for logistic landing, which is now covered by Bay, not Albions)

FSS is replacing the 3 RFA Fort-class solid replenishment ships.

Nothing to do with Albion or Bay.

[Timmymagic]

Ocean does not have a steel beach. She has a ramp and could deploy a floating pontoon.

Sorry I meant the Pontoon. I guess as a lash up it has some value, but its not a great solution by any stretch.

[ArmChairCivvy]

FSS is replacing the 3 RFA Fort-class solid replenishment ships.

Nothing to do with Albion or Bay.

Nothing to do with Albion, that's for sure.

There might be some cross-over with the Bays (their original designation was logistics, until it was felt that across what the European NATO navies (then) possessed, a more uniformal code for "assets" needed to be applied).

Of course all of this is/ will be mute if we go for such a low number of FSS that they can "barely" fulfill their primary mission..

[benny14]

Of course all of this is/ will be mute if we go for such a low number of FSS that they can "barely" fulfill their primary mission..

Going for 2 and not taking the 3rd would make operations very difficult.

[shark bait]

A good example of a steel beach is at the stern of the Dutch Joint Supply Ship. It allows landing craft to 'dock' with the ship directly, without the expense (or full protection) of a flooding well dock.

It's an example, I don't know if it's a good example.

I've never see a picture of it in use? It looks real awkward to me.

By 2027/28 the Point class RoRo ships will be 25 years old and need replacing. Would it be possible to design a ship to provide 2500 lim vehicle decks plus 8000 m3 of solid stores plus a steel beach to allow for tactical offload?

I think that looses the value of the class, which are suppose to be built to cheap civilian spec. The Point Class can already offload directly onto Mexeflote, but it's an inefficient slow process. I'll suggest rather than building something new, focus on something to improve this process.

Going for 2 and not taking the 3rd would make operations very difficult.

Why would it?

These are fleet support ships, we're never going to have more than 1 fleet at sea, so why do we need more that one for each carrier?

When there was the requirement to support an amphibious assault the third could be easily justified because we cant put our giant single egg basket next to a hostile coast. With that requirement gone we just need one for each carrier.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we're never going to have more than 1 fleet at sea, so why do we need more that one for each carrier?

- have you considered the discharge rates (the fuel side of it has 4 Tides, so let's just look at the rest of it)?
- the carrier(s) is (are) not sailing alone

With that requirement gone we just need one for each carrier.

- when/ where has that (supporting littoral manoeuvre) requirement been abolished?
- if there is a clear N:o 1 priority (to be met first), it does not mean that 2,3... have been abolished
- a shoestring solution will do for a while (but only for a while)

A bde ashore ( a light one, like 3 CDO) would take (vehicles and supplies for 30 days counted together) 11.000 LIM. Just to ferry; then there is the discharge rate again. Is it safe (take your time); San Carlos was not safe... and we know what the beaching model + "taking your time" i.e. wrong priorities in discharging produced as a result.
- so a BG is (guessing) 40% of that. One Bay taken up just by the not-close combat Coy with its vehicles (you would need at least one of those as there are not enough helicopters for everyone, and yomping can be done only when it suits "the occasion").

[shark bait]

I was talking to someone who attended the industry day, who claims the sea base requirement has gone. It's likely to be a focused stores ship with double hanger and flight deck.

There has always been a greater requirement for tankers than stores ships, which makes sense because frigates can be refueled at sea, but cant have the VLS replenished.

The tankers also bring the food.

[Lord Jim]

Having facilities to house and operate two Merlin sized platforms should be set in stone for these platforms. It allows some of the Merlins to be dispersed throughout the Task Force freeing up space on the Flat Tops.


I wonder if it would be possible to have space on deck for standard ISO containers? These could either hold additional stores or, the location could be used for a modular Hospital. Would add some flexibility and maybe gain some funds form elsewhere as HADR would be a secondary role. Just a thought.

[ArmChairCivvy]

stores ship with double hanger

Good news!

The tankers also bring the food.

Yes, they have refr. containers, but only a very limited number.

allows some of the Merlins to be dispersed throughout the Task Force freeing up space on the Flat Tops.

- a good argument
- also, as long as we have the older Forts in the mix, vertrep capacity is very important, for reasons outlined by Save the Royal Navy in their January article:
"FSS scheduled to pass main gate approval in December 2019, a full year after the Type 31e? The geometry and design arrangements of the RAS rigs on the three current Fort class ships do not permit them to resupply the aircraft carrier’s full range of needs. They do not have heavy RAS rigs compatible with the carrier (capable of supplying big items such as F-35 engines). The only alternative would be vertical replenishment (VERTREP) using helicopters to transfer loads which is a slow process and fatigues the airframes. Effectively a key component that enables the carriers to deploy globally will be missing until the first FSS ship is delivered sometime around 2025."
- in my books the reason for Ft. Victoria going into refit again, just when £ 50m had been spent on her (i.e. removing this limitation, and making it possible to space the arrival of the new - more expensive than £50m... cash budgets stike again! - FSSs over a longer time line)

[shark bait]

By the sounds of things support for 2 helicopters is more or less set in stone.

Is a Hospital really the kind of thing we want to put in ISO containers? That sounds grim.

[Poiuytrewq]

Having facilities to house and operate two Merlin sized platforms should be set in stone for these platforms.

It should be set in stone for all new platforms that are wide enough to incorporate a double hanger.

Relatively cheap to add to a design but a massive force multiplier when used to its full potential.

[Lord Jim]

Wasn't the main UK Hospital in Afghanistan built around modules based on ISO containers?

[shark bait]

I don't think so. I don't think there are any role 3 medical facilities in ISO containers.

The deployable facilities tend to be in tents, which can be much larger. How is a medic suppose to keep an eye on a 48 bed ward if its spread out across 20 containers?

[Caribbean]

That sounds grim

"Grim" is not getting hospital treatment at all.

Seems there's a lot to choose from.
http://www.world-camps.com/containerisedhospitals.php
https://www.young-medical.com/containerised-solutions

[Lord Jim]

That was the sort of thing I was thinking of. Just thought it would be another way to utilise the SSS and it could still do its core job.

[Poiuytrewq]

Are the FSS ships the correct vessel to have the medical facilities on-board?

Would the Bays be a better base for a small medical facility unless Argus was in attendance or would its lack of speed count against them for keeping up with the CSG.

What level of medical facilities does the QE class contain themselves?

[shark bait]

The main medical facility should not be on a platform that already has another job to do.

For example if F35's are coming in for a quick turn around with hot refuel can we really interrupt that with a medevac flight? Likewise do we want to be holding a medevac flight away because the deck is busy with VERTREP and has no clear spots?

The medical platform really needs to be dedicated.

[abc123]

we're never going to have more than 1 fleet at sea, so why do we need more that one for each carrier?

. With that requirement gone we just need one for each carrier.

[Caribbean]

The main medical facility should not be on a platform that already has another job to do.

For example if F35's are coming in for a quick turn around with hot refuel can we really interrupt that will a medevac flight? Likewise do we want to be holding a medevac flight away because the deck has no clear spots?

I would agree with that. Each platform should have medical facilities commensurate with it's crew needs, plus some excess capacity to allow any vessel to contribute hospital facilities in low-risk ops (e.g. HADR operations). For major operations a dedicated PCRS is definitely needed (we seem to have invented the concept, presumably for reasons that still apply), backed by either adapted or purpose-designed hospital ships for longer-term care. What form those vessels take is clearly up for debate, but you can't really fault the logic behind the separation of roles.

[Poiuytrewq]

If it is a large campaign and Argus is present then there is no issue. I had high hopes that a 4th FSS hull could be adapted into an Argus replacement but if the FSS vessel is going to be a tide derivative it probably won't be suitable.

Does Argus need replaced like for like in 2024 or would it be better if the medical facilities were spread across the fleet to better utilise the hulls in the water and the Argus replacement was more of an Argus/Ocean hybrid?

For example, if the Bays and Argus have a top speed of 18knts, keeping up with the CSG would be a problem for both.

Should the Argus replacement have a much increased top speed to keep with the carriers?

If the Bays are now going to perform the majority of HADR missions since Oceans decommissioning should the medical and aviation capabilities of these vessels be improved?

A containerised medical system sounds great but are ISO containers really the best place to treat battlefield injuries? As said the containerised medical system may be more suitable for HADR deployments and then it's unlikely the FSS ships will be present unless QE or POW is attending.

[shark bait]

The role 3 medical facility really need to operate in isolation.

It could go on the FSS, but then we would need to build an extra one, which cost a lot.

It could go on the Bay Class, but that removes yet another one from service, the RFA would be down to a single available LSD.

[shark bait]

A Proposal;

If the sea base requirement is gone, then cap the FSS build at 2 units.

Sell the Wave class now.

Use the savings from FSS 3 and the proceeds from the waves to buy 2 AEGIR-18R, for medical, Humanitarian assistance, submarine tender, and replenishment duties.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Are the FSS ships the correct vessel to have the medical facilities on-board?

Would the Bays be a better base

Well, we are not (necessarily) talking about one pick-up (LZ) point, but potentially many, and the (afloat) facility needs to be "not too far" out to sea.