shark bait wrote: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.
Why we need to sell Waves? They were commissioned in 2003. Fort Victoria will be active till 2029 (correct?), when the 2 Waves are already 27 years old. So, just "replace" For Victoria and 2 Waves with 2 AEGIR-18R, is this OK?
Also, for a moment, modify Waves to carry more ISO containers and LCVPs, as a interim solution.
Poiuytrewq wrote:are ISO containers really the best place to treat battlefield injuries
I think, if we are talking about short-term, that though they are not ideal, they are an easy way of ramping up capacity and would allow the use of vessels that would not normally be suitable for conversion. In the past, we used cruise-liners (SS Uganda was converted, at Gibraltar, to take a heli-deck, RAS equipment and Satcomms in 3 days), but in future, a containerised solution would allow the use of ro-ro ferries or even (in the extreme, I admit) PSVs to host a medical facility.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
shark bait wrote: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.
The concept of a sea base is gone, but the requirement for FSS to supply soild stores for an amphibious op is still there. They are not the same thing.
Sea base was/is a new idea about how to conduct amphibious ops. Basically the concept was to minimise the footprint ashore.
Traditionally, after the beachhead has been secured, you build up your supplies within the beachhead with ammo dumps, fuel dumps etc., establish field hospitals and REME workshops and maybe set up a helicopter 'base'. Once all these logistics are established ashore, you can then breakout of the beachhead. The frontline units will then be supplied from the logistics base at the beachhead.
The idea for the Sea Base was to keep as much of this stuff aboard ships. The front line units would be supplied directly from this sea base, and your hospital, REME workshops etc. would be kept at sea.
This was a very fashionable idea about 10 years ago (much like Strike Brigades are today). Everything would be quicker and more agile... But quicker and agile turns out to be difficult and expensive.
So we are nearly back to the traditional approach. Solid stores for the Lead Commando Group will be carried by the FSS. They will be offloaded using ship's cranes into landing craft and workboats (from the LPDs and LSDs). Logistic dumps and workshops will be established ashore.
Can only agree with the (chronological) description above.
MARS Capability in generic terms, I have put in italics the areas where I would see slippage (through the pruning of the programme):
Bulk Material
Fuel, Food, Ammunition, Stores, Food and Water in the maritime environment
Joint Sea Based Logistics Support and sustainment to Land Forces from the sea including limited Combat
Services Support (equipment repair and maintenance)
Forward Aviation Support
Basing, maintenance, repair and operation of helicopters - using facilities on carriers instead
User Requirements more granularly:
Carrier Strike Support - met (transition stages and related costs make sense)
Littoral Manoeuvre Support - degrading
Maritime Security Support - instead of ships, friendly ports and forward basing?
So what to do, to patch the holes and cracks that have appeared on the way?
- build the 3rd FSS on an identical hull
- configure the superstucture to be more in tune for off-loading onto smaller vessels, rather than ship-to-ship RAS'sing and enhance the fwd aviation support facilities (from the two helos presumably to be hangared on the other FSS sister vessels).
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)
The other thing about Seabasing is that you don’t need to permanently base troops on shore either. If we think about the most likely operations (SF ops, HADR) then the ability to base a few hundred troops offshore with their kit / supplies is very attractive. Doing this without the need for an expensive LHD/LPD is also attractive.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
It must be difficult not having permanent installations such as workshops or operating theatres at hand. To my mind the Fleet Solid Support Ship should be a sea base. A large platform that has the means to get man, machine and supplies in the air, across the sea and off loaded in docks. Crucially I believe the man and his machine should go together ashore, this is something air travel limits.
My ship would both be large and capable i.e. with a dock and substantial aviation space. But then I wouldn't go for the LHD, I'd have X4 MARS SSS instead
Repulse wrote: If we think about the most likely operations (SF ops, HADR) then
Frequency and importance (what is at stake) need to be separated... the fire brigade would be quite impotent if only the lead car can be called
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)
the thing that comes to mind when talking about a sea base is that becomes a big target close to shore that will need a large effort to defend due to its importance also the a sea base will need to be dead in the water to allow fuel line to be run a shore to the beach head it now means that your job of defending it becomes harder we also have to take in to mind that if we lose the sea base it will be a set back that will lose us the conflict as all the key factors for the brake out from the beach head will be a the bottom of the sea
Tempest414 wrote:the thing that comes to mind when talking about a sea base is that becomes a big target close to shore that will need a large effort to defend due to its importance also the a sea base will need to be dead in the water to allow fuel line to be run a shore to the beach head it now means that your job of defending it becomes harder we also have to take in to mind that if we lose the sea base it will be a set back that will lose us the conflict as all the key factors for the brake out from the beach head will be a the bottom of the sea
If we were talking about divisional level invasion operations I'd agree with you, but the UK is so far from being able to do this then unless we have the cash and 10yrs to build up let's out it to one side on the list of things to worry about after the shit has hit the fan and after the really big items to worry about.
My view of sea basing is that you are operating over the horizon deploying / supplying a battle group / Cdo level max via helicopters, small boats and hovercraft.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Repulse wrote: If we think about the most likely operations (SF ops, HADR) then
Frequency and importance (what is at stake) need to be separated... the fire brigade would be quite impotent if only the lead car can be called
Agree, but unless we have the budget then to use your analogy we can only afford a lead car that can put out small fires far from the fire station. Currently we have two fire engines with limited kit, one on bricks and not enough firemen.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Repulse wrote:Currently we have two fire engines with limited kit, one on bricks and not enough firemen.
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)
I am also imagining that a sea base offers facilities say onshore can't. I am thinking machine tools or CT / MRI scanners, even a photocopier....
All these can be onshore but might be best kept in a super - workshop / hospital / office.
In the days or high-tech additive component making I feel there could be an opportunity to think outside the box here, a big resource for a mobile rapid reaction force...
Can people please not post links to pay sites. instead do a summary of what the article says so that the majority of us can follow the point you are making.
Lord Jim wrote:Can people please not post links to pay sites. instead do a summary of what the article says so that the majority of us can follow the point you are making.
No, unless it's a site rule, I'll post links to articles whether they have a paywall or not. Just because you can't see beyond a paywall doesn't mean that everyone else is in the same boat. In fact I don't subscribe to the FT but I was able to read the full article since they allow readers a limited number of free articles per month (and so I wasn't even aware that there was a paywall in this instance)
At least they did not have a paywall - so an ambulance could be called in time
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)
dmereifield wrote: need and keep "Goliath" (QE crane) afterall?!
I ust recently read about Meyer Warft (big in cruise ships... which, in their trn, tend to be big, too)
- Goliath , in their yard was mentioned
- does not need to be the same "Goliath"
- but is "ours" still there?
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)
