Future Solid Support Ship

[Scimitar54]

Honorary Knighthood for the Chairman & CEO of Nissan, for the closure of Barcelona Nissan Plant and Investment in the Nissan plant in Sunderland. On 1 January 2021, recognise the Catalan region as an independent country.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Chairman & CEO of Nissan

Carlos can't come and collect as there is a 'red notice' out for him

[ArmChairCivvy]

Off the top of my head

and carbon copies to "The main representative UK shellfish sector bodies (Shellfish Association, NFFO, SFF), with financial support from the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers and shellfish businesses, commissioned Cumulus Consultants to produce the report."
- they would love your thinking ("like a hole in the head") as 41 % of the UK fishing fleet is active with shellfish and 46% of the value landed deals with the same... so follow the money, and:
"The relevance of particular countries for UK shellfish exports varies by species; eg, brown crab (France, Spain and Portugal), velvet crab (Spain), lobster (France and Spain), Nephrops (France and Spain), cuttlefish (Spain, Italy and the Netherlands), scallops (France and Italy), clams (France, Spain, the Netherlands), and mussels (the Netherlands). France is the principal export market for crustaceans, followed by Spain, Portugal and Italy, while the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, Spain and France are of particular relevance for molluscs, and Spain, Italy and the Netherlands are of relevance for cephalopods."

Soo-o?... let's head for the Brexit thread It provides ever lasting fun (as a thread; the real world impact could be something else )

[dmereifield]

You guys are soft. Tell Spain to stop their crap with Gibraltar or suffer the consequences.

What consequences could the UK impose?

Are we not discussing one?

Ok, but what else. Not being sarky, just asking. What realistically can the UK do without sinking to their petty levels?

Off the top of my head: no post-Brexit UK fishing licenses for Spanish boats.

Interesring idea. Not really possible since fisheries is devolved from members states to the EU, so if the UK signs an agreement on fisheries with the EU it will be up to the EU to share any quota allocated to the EU amongst it's member states. I don't think it would be possible for the UK to ban Spanish ships only

[Ron5]

You guys are soft. Tell Spain to stop their crap with Gibraltar or suffer the consequences.

What consequences could the UK impose?

Are we not discussing one?

Ok, but what else. Not being sarky, just asking. What realistically can the UK do without sinking to their petty levels?

Off the top of my head: no post-Brexit UK fishing licenses for Spanish boats.

Interesring idea. Not really possible since fisheries is devolved from members states to the EU, so if the UK signs an agreement on fisheries with the EU it will be up to the EU to share any quota allocated to the EU amongst it's member states. I don't think it would be possible for the UK to ban Spanish ships only

None of that is close to being agreed. My understanding is that the uk is proposing licensing individual boats. Seems to me to be a good way to go about it.

[dmereifield]

You guys are soft. Tell Spain to stop their crap with Gibraltar or suffer the consequences.

What consequences could the UK impose?

Are we not discussing one?

Ok, but what else. Not being sarky, just asking. What realistically can the UK do without sinking to their petty levels?

Off the top of my head: no post-Brexit UK fishing licenses for Spanish boats.

Interesring idea. Not really possible since fisheries is devolved from members states to the EU, so if the UK signs an agreement on fisheries with the EU it will be up to the EU to share any quota allocated to the EU amongst it's member states. I don't think it would be possible for the UK to ban Spanish ships only

None of that is close to being agreed. My understanding is that the uk is proposing licensing individual boats. Seems to me to be a good way to go about it.

I don't think it's as straightforward as you suggest, but I'm all for penalizing the Spanish for their silly antics

[J. Tattersall]

It all comes down to this part of an EU treaty, or sort of

Article 346

(ex Article 296 TEC)

1. The provisions of the Treaties shall not preclude the application of the following rules:

(a)

no Member State shall be obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security;

(b)

any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material; such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the internal market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.

2. The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958, of the products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply.

Very specifically part b allowed EU countries to

take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material

Now it's this bit of EU law which some countries interpret very narrowly while others interpret it quite widely, and to the benefit of their industry. It was not EU law that required the UK to open up competition for RFA tankers to South Korea since they are not in the EU. The UK is still part of the single market until the end of the Brexit transition period hence this rule still applies. What rule might come after this is unknown.

However this rule, and the application of competition beyond the EU, has also served the UK's purpose of driving down the cost of defence procurement through international competition. Clearly a risk in this has always been the viability of the wider (i.e. beyond warships) UK shipbuilding sector. Whether a perception that things might materially change, after the Brexit transition period, affected Navantia's and Harland and Wolff's decision making in their recent tie up is anybody's guess.

[J. Tattersall]

So it will be interesting to see both how this procurement proceeds as well as what sort of agreement is reached at the end of the Brexit transition period.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if the UK signs an agreement on fisheries with the EU it will be up to the EU to share any quota allocated to the EU amongst it's member states. I don't think it would be possible for the UK to ban Spanish ships only

Whether a perception that things might materially change, after the Brexit transition period, affected Navantia's and Harland and Wolff's decision making in their recent tie up is anybody's guess.

A kind of 'draw' would be that UK shellfish exports by species especially craved for by the Spaniards continue across the Bay of Biscay and some sections for finishing ('assembling') @ H&W of the FSS make their way... the other way. And a mighty asset - the biggest dry dock in the UK - will get to be used again.
- a genuine question: where will the QEs be drydocked when that time arrives? With the propeller trouble Antwerp was speculated about. And we are going to be able to use the facilities @ Duqm in Oman. Very much doubt that major work of the kind that can be scheduled ahead would be carried out in either

[RichardIC]

a genuine question: where will the QEs be drydocked when that time arrives? With the propeller trouble Antwerp was speculated about.

QLZ has already dry docked at Rosyth hasn't she?

[SKB]

QE was dry-docked in Rosyth for six weeks between April and May of 2019.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-qu ... es-rosyth/

[ArmChairCivvy]

I know, someone is good at spotting the opportunities by reading the tides charts

[donald_of_tokyo]

As MOD is struggling against "cuts" (to say the truth, most of the "cuts" is not because of budget reduction, just because of cost increase in each program), how much will it cost to modify her, so that can do "some fraction" of CVTF support.

It will NOT be cost effective, when full-capability of CVTF strike support be needed for sure.

But, if not doing land-attack much, but more on air defence (do not need huge amount of ammo), can her do something? Delay SSS until "AFTER" T31, so that Rosyth yard can find "next job" (I see almost zero case for "more" T31, in current condition). Even keeping the currently ordered 5 will be a very difficult job.

[dmereifield]

if the UK signs an agreement on fisheries with the EU it will be up to the EU to share any quota allocated to the EU amongst it's member states. I don't think it would be possible for the UK to ban Spanish ships only

Whether a perception that things might materially change, after the Brexit transition period, affected Navantia's and Harland and Wolff's decision making in their recent tie up is anybody's guess.

A kind of 'draw' would be that UK shellfish exports by species especially craved for by the Spaniards continue across the Bay of Biscay and some sections for finishing ('assembling') @ H&W of the FSS make their way... the other way. And a mighty asset - the biggest dry dock in the UK - will get to be used again.
- a genuine question: where will the QEs be drydocked when that time arrives? With the propeller trouble Antwerp was speculated about. And we are going to be able to use the facilities @ Duqm in Oman. Very much doubt that major work of the kind that can be scheduled ahead would be carried out in either

Exports of shellfish will continue to be allowed in any case

[ArmChairCivvy]

41 % of the UK fishing fleet is active with shellfish and 46% of the value landed deals with the same

We will have to move this to the Brexit thread? But a little calculation for you to do, on the way:
- if the 46% above is for the whole of UK, and
- if 45% of the English quotas are held by other EEA countries (not countries directly)

... so how much of the catch (of shellfish) has already been transferred to foreign hands? Without negotiation, but with a straightforward commercial purchase. Something the Gvmnt has said can't be overturned (been done in good faith; this is not some Commie regime in the third world, or?)

So much of this negotiation is just posturing. Gove must be extra happy not to be the minister (his previous post) anymore when the facts actually surface - won't be long now

[Lord Jim]

Surely this is enough of Fishing for now, can we get back to the topic please and move the remainder of this discussion to BREXIT.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Simple question.

Is it "not bad" to simply modify "one (or two) of the Fort Rosalie" class to carry the RAS gear the same to those fitted to Fort Victoria, to save the day until 2030? Of course, she will not be able to provide full cargo capability required for FSSS, but can do something?

This will enable Babcock Rosyth to build FSSS, after RN's 5 T31 finishes.

As I see no big future in T31, and I'm afraid replacement for LPD and LSD will be around 2035 or later, this will be one option to save Rosyth from collapsing in 2030?

[RichardIC]

Is it "not bad" to simply modify "one (or two) of the Fort Rosalie" class to carry the RAS gear the same to those fitted to Fort Victoria, to save the day until 2030? Of course, she will not be able to provide full cargo capability required for FSSS, but can do something?

Donald, from a 2018 article on STRN

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-fo ... -carriers/

The older RFA Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin are fitted with 3 pivoted arm Mk IA replenishment rigs (2 on the starboard and 1 on port side). This kind of rig is incompatible with the HRAS rigs fitted to the QEC and also lack the height required. It is clearly not worth upgrading the two much older Fort-class, due to go out of service by 2024, of which only one is active at a time. Lack of manpower and an effort to prolong their lives has seen these ships rotate between periods in lay-up in Birkenhead and on active service. Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin will only be able to transfer stores to the carrier by helicopter – vertical replenishment (VERTREP).

Fort Victoria doesn't have full-blown HRAS.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The older RFA Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin are fitted with 3 pivoted arm Mk IA replenishment rigs (2 on the starboard and 1 on port side). This kind of rig is incompatible with the HRAS rigs fitted to the QEC and also lack the height required. It is clearly not worth upgrading the two much older Fort-class, due to go out of service by 2024, of which only one is active at a time. Lack of manpower and an effort to prolong their lives has seen these ships rotate between periods in lay-up in Birkenhead and on active service. Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin will only be able to transfer stores to the carrier by helicopter – vertical replenishment (VERTREP).

Fort Victoria doesn't have full-blown HRAS.

Thanks, I know it.

My point is, do RN really need "full-blown HRAS" by 2030? The same RAS rig onboard Fort Victoria can do something to CV, even though not as good as full-blown HRAS? I understandFort Rosalie and Fort Austin can carry it, if not HRAS. If needed, even we can cut-out the helicopter hanger which is completely needless when along with CV.

Currently, FSSS looks like going within UK (maybe, maybe not). But, currently Rosyth is full, and Camel Laird alone cannot build it. Yes, actually, of course they can, if they hire a lot of "foreign labors" to do it. But, if so, no need to build it in UK. Most of the money and experience goes abroad.

At the same time, Rosyth is in very high risk of shutdown after 2030. Or at least, significant reduction in its work force. This means, I'm afraid, Babcock is hiring many "foreign labors" NOW. And again, for what? Foreign design ship, with foreign main generator, foreign CMS, and foreign main guns and radar (with UK SAM), build mostly by foreign labors?

If Babcock can find sustaining job flow, they can keep and increase its own labor force, within UK. This is my point.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Fort Victoria doesn't have full-blown HRAS.

Somewhere, perhaps that linked article, it was stated that the bottleneck was the internal cargo handling system, TO the rig?

Which at the time made me think that as there used to be a v big space, midship, for fuel replenish; why was that space no reconfigured to alleviate that constraint
- must admit that I stopped there, and did not refer to the rest of the layout (do we even know it, past the latest refit?)

[shark bait]

At 45 years old the best thing to do is melt them down

[donald_of_tokyo]

At 45 years old the best thing to do is melt them down

Only if replacement comes, I think? (I think you are supporter of building FSSS abroad. So, consistent you are, no problem for me.)

(But, they are 42 and 41 years old). Also, for a support vessel, 41-2 years old is a number "sometimes we see".

[Aethulwulf]

As stated in the 2018 article on STRN...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-fo ... -carriers/

...the new HRAS system can deliver 25 loads an hour of up to 6 tonnes. The FSS is design to be fitted with 2 of these systems on the port side, in line with the two HRAS points on the aircraft lift areas of QEC. So the new FSS should be able deliver up to 300 tonnes an hour.

Fort Victoria can only use one RAS station with QEC, which is restricted to 2 tonne loads. Assuming the same rate of 25 loads an hour, this equates to 50 tonnes an hour [*].

But what is needed?

Lets assume the a QEC is undertaking high intensity combat operations, flying 72 sorties a day. Each sortie consumes, on average, two Paveway IVs. Over 5 days, that is 720 Paveway IVs. Assume each has a mass of 230 kg, that's 165.6 tonnes.

To replenish a QEC with 720 Paveways would take Fort Victoria at least 3.6 hours of non-stop RAS. And that does not include any other munitions, spares and other solid stores.

To replenish a QEC with 720 Paveways would take FSS at least 33 minutes of RAS, allowing lots of time for all the other munitions and solid stores that would also need to be replenished.

[* I'm pretty sure that this assumption is wrong and that the new HRAS is designed to operate at a much faster rate than the present systems - but can't find any data at the mo.]

The debate is really how likely are such high intensity combat ops? 720 Paveway IVs are a big chunk of the whole of the UK's stockpile.

[Ron5]

I don't think the UK has the current or near future capacity to design & build the FSS. My guess is that design bandwidth is the bigger problem.

I don't want Spain to build them because the Spaniards are being jerks over Gibraltar and Brexit in general. Reeks of rewarding bad behavior.

South Korea doesn't want to build them after their bad experience with the Tides.

So who the heck is left?

Glad it ain't my problem. Mass obsolesce, thanks to that nice Mr Gordon Brown, is a biatch.

[donald_of_tokyo]

... the new FSS should be able deliver up to 300 tonnes an hour.

Fort Victoria can only use one RAS station with QEC, which is restricted to 2 tonne loads. Assuming the same rate of 25 loads an hour, this equates to 50 tonnes an hour [*]. ...
The debate is really how likely are such high intensity combat ops? 720 Paveway IVs are a big chunk of the whole of the UK's stockpile.

Thanks. The last sentence is my point. Also, as I understand QEC needs 36 F35s to provide 72 sorties a day = unlikely to happen by 2030.

Your simple calculation (very nice) tells us, if it is 10-15 sorties a day (the same to "Charles de Gaulle left the Persian Gulf in late-April 2015"), it will be 5 times easier (if 15). So, your "3.6 hours with Fort Victoria" becomes 43 minutes. Adding other cargo, may be 1-2 hours? Not bad.

FSSS is "much better" of course, that is the reason we need it. My comment is on "if we cannot afford it NOW". And I am seriously afraid it is "highly" un-likely. (I think RN must have not been ordering T31, but rather ordered FSSS. But, now RN is going to spend 2B GBP with T31, and Rosyth is tied up with it.)