Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Well instead of claiming the impossibility of such a ship we have one in service that has combined such things for years let alone on 3 separate hulls. She took asw merlins to operation telic, stood by off Yemen with more than 80 Royal Marines to evacuate British citizens, deployed into the Indian Ocean for more than a year, took command of the counter piracy task group embarking American Seahawk helicopters. Provided store replenishment support to ships at sea and as of last year and for the next decade will provide perfectly adequate support to a deployed RN task group.

If you want to look at what will replace it going fwd taking fort victoria as a starting point is neither an impossibility or daft. Considering the changing role of the RM it may well be a time to consider options. Could u dispense with stern replenishment and consider a rear ramp like ocean had for some vehicles in a small garage under the flight deck or other possible options.

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 »

Yes, a ship can be built as multi-role, and there are many examples of this. There are no good examples of a ship being 'everything-role' because at some point the extra complexity does not represent good value for money.

The closest example of an 'everything-role' ship is the Karel-Doorman which isn't well loved by it's user. Even in British experience Fort-Victoria proved to be too complex and expensive (that's why Fort-George was scrapped and the older forts retained)

For the next generation, it is reasonable to add some extra features to a stores ship, such as extra aviation support or even a vehicle deck. However, trying to combine an assault platform with a stores ship may be possible, but probably tips the scale on the side of being too complex and expensive.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the new design could have a RO-RO back end with a 40 by 30 meter space on 2 decks under the fight deck stroke hangar giving 2 x 1200 m2 spaces that could be used to store anything from bog rolls to armoured vehicles

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

SW1 wrote:Provided store replenishment support to ships at sea and as of last year and for the next decade will provide perfectly adequate support to a deployed RN task group.
Fort Vic isn't perfectly adequate - she's just all there is. And she won't be good for the next decade with an OSD of 2028.

The Tides were bought to provide tanker capability for carrier strike with FSS providing stores. Fort Vic can provide a reduced stores capacity but there's only one of her and when she has maintenance down-time, which as an ageing asset she will need, there will be no stores support.

The NAO report in July made exactly this point several times.
Tempest414 wrote:Maybe the new design could have a RO-RO back end with a 40 by 30 meter space on 2 decks under the fight deck stroke hangar giving 2 x 1200 m2 spaces that could be used to store anything from bog rolls to armoured vehicles
Which will add massive complexity and cost for little or no benefit. We need stores support for the carriers. So why do we need a ro-ro deck for armoured vehicles? If it's not needed leave it out.

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 »

A storage deck on a storage ship is not going to add 'massive complexity', neither is adding a ramp to that storage deck.

And lets not forget a ramp may actually improve its primary role;

Image
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

today I don't care but maybe a ro-ro deck could speed up replenishment of the ship its self

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

The current descution seems to of came out over my cooments if using a commons hull and from what Iv read so far its coming across that some have misunderstood what I meant by this.

I was not suggesting having a one stop vessel that does RAS along with amphibious role but depending on what design is chosen for the SSS that this design could be the starting point in developing the next gen LPDs and LSDs.

For example if a design like the one used as the image in this link was chosen are we saying this design couldn’t then be evolved to fit the LPD and LSD roles ? https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/fleet- ... tic-chain/

The idea I was putting forward was to go for as much commonality across the fleet as we can.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

shark bait wrote:A storage deck on a storage ship is not going to add 'massive complexity', neither is adding a ramp to that storage deck.
OK' I'll cede "massive", but armoured vehicles!?

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 »

Tanks and IFVs are probably a step too far but some of the lighter vehicles could be accommodated without too much trouble.

It would be nice to have a space that can be used for general stores or special mission equipment depending on the deployment. That sounds achievable without too much complexity and opens up the 'sea-base' role the RN has been dabbling in.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Jake1992 wrote:The idea I was putting forward was to go for as much commonality across the fleet as we can.
Commonality is a good thing. So sensors, bridge layout, propulsion prime movers etc. etc.. Lots of things.

But the Point that N-a-B was making is that using one hullform to form the basis of vessels with fundamentally different tasks is a bad idea. You save little in terms of design work and add a world of complexity when it comes to the actual internal detail and layout which is the important thing and where most of the time and cost is involved.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Jake1992 wrote:For example if a design like the one used as the image in this link was chosen are we saying this design couldn’t then be evolved to fit the LPD and LSD roles ? https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/fleet- ... tic-chain/
The picture BTW is sexy as hell, but it's a very initial artist's impression and is now over a decade old. The overall design concept seems to have progressed and the recent Navantia AI is more likely going to be what we'll end up with.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:Well instead of claiming the impossibility of such a ship we have one in service that has combined such things for years let alone on 3 separate hulls. She took asw merlins to operation telic, stood by off Yemen with more than 80 Royal Marines to evacuate British citizens, deployed into the Indian Ocean for more than a year, took command of the counter piracy task group embarking American Seahawk helicopters. Provided store replenishment support to ships at sea and as of last year and for the next decade will provide perfectly adequate support to a deployed RN task group.

If you want to look at what will replace it going fwd taking fort victoria as a starting point is neither an impossibility or daft. Considering the changing role of the RM it may well be a time to consider options. Could u dispense with stern replenishment and consider a rear ramp like ocean had for some vehicles in a small garage under the flight deck or other possible options.
You are misunderstanding what is being discussed.

The idea proposed here, there, and everywhere is that if you use the same hull design for multiple classes of ships it would save umpty umpty gazillions.

NaB is pointing out that is unrealistic. Firstly, different classes have different requirements that will change the hull design. Secondly, designing a new hull form is cheap. It's designing and qualifying what goes inside that costs.

Nobody, but nobody, repeat nobody, has ever said you cannot combine different roles in the same ship. NaB least of all. That thought only resides in your fevered brow.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand RN considered mixing Tanker and SSS is not a good way.
My guess is there are four reasons for that:

1. The volumes required for the QE's are too much for a single tanker/stores supply ship.

2. Carrier fuel & solid stores need replenishing on different cycles.

3. Tanker & Stores ships have different dockside replenishing cycles.

3. Tankers & Stores ships go to different places to refill.

Just guesses.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Ron5 wrote:The idea proposed here, there, and everywhere is that if you use the same hull design for multiple classes of ships it would save umpty umpty gazillions.
Also applied to the Type 45 replacement: oh wouldn't it be ever so cheaper to build a Type 46 using a Type 26 hull design. We'd save enough moulah to have a fleet of 20.

Dumb idea. Looking at you ACC.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:1. The volumes required for the QE's are too much for a single tanker/stores supply ship.
This is the reason given in a BMT presentation a long wile ago. They suggest a carrier group requires such large volumes two auxiliaries would be required so there is no benefit building more complex ships because hull number cant be reduced.

The opposite is true for smaller fleets where the demands are lower and auxiliaries can be consolidated.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

RichardIC wrote:
shark bait wrote:A storage deck on a storage ship is not going to add 'massive complexity', neither is adding a ramp to that storage deck.
OK' I'll cede "massive", but armoured vehicles!?
My point was more that a large space with ro-ro could be filled with anything yes armoured vehicles are at the far end of a long list but if the space there maybe one day for one or two deployments why not. When I am talking armoured vehicle I am thinking Viking , Mastiff , Warrior and the like however I would see the space being used as extra stores

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:Dumb idea. Looking at you ACC.
I will have the last laugh on that... as always. ;) Was only just (w/o mentioning names :lol: ) gently trying to remind you of our discussion of fire-control channels on naval SAMs many years ago
... which you lost Big Time.

Now that I read this - straight after
, actually - I can see that you have been down to a boot-camp, and trying to regain the 'title'. But as in boxing, you will need to work your way up; carry on ;) up the Khyber.
shark bait wrote: requires such large volumes two auxiliaries would be required so there is no benefit building more complex ships because hull number cant be reduced.

Wise words from BMT - as always:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:... the money saved by making the FSS hulls simpler and w/o dead weight could help us towards the target of having three of them (eventually)
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I will have the last laugh on that... as always.
Fighting talk :lol: :lol:

I'm frequently wrong but not on this!!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

We have to avoid "Mission creep", on the FSS at all cost, no pun intended. We need a platform that just does what is required to keep the carriers supplies at sea, nothing more, the budget isn't there to do anything else. May be the planned LSS could be a jack of all trades, transporting and supplying troops, vehicles and aviation assets, but again cost is going to be a major factor, especially if we want at least three.

We seem to be trying to do Carrier Strike on the cheap. We spent more than was necessary on the actual Carriers through imposed delays amongst other things and do not seem to want to take on board the lessons other nations have learnt when conducting long duration carrier operations. Like so many things we are going to do Carrier Strike our own way, regardless on how this actually impact the end results and how effective these are.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:I'm frequently wrong but not on this!!
T4X belongs to a different thread
... but as we move this to the right place, I just want to remind you about your made-up argument (Babcock & lego ships) against the obvious 8-) winner; T31 being another thread. Just to avoid this being all over the place :D
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:We have to avoid "Mission creep", on the FSS at all cost
I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. If the Navy built three pure carrier support ships I think we will see them sat in port most of the time. I think it's important these platforms have something to do when a carrier group is not on a war footing, i.e. most of the time.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We have to avoid "Mission creep", on the FSS at all cost
I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. If the Navy built three pure carrier support ships I think we will see them sat in port most of the time. I think it's important these platforms have something to do when a carrier group is not on a war footing, i.e. most of the time.
I agree this is why I like the idea of a hangar for 3 Merlin's and a simple RO-RO rear end with a good size stores / vehicle deck so they could carry JCB's ,lorries , Land Rovers when on relief duties and simple support of the LRG

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:like the idea of a hangar for 3 Merlin's and a simple RO-RO rear end with a good size stores / vehicle deck so they could carry JCB's ,lorries , Land Rovers
neither of those expensive to accommodate on a big hull
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Much like the Hnoms Maud also designed by BMT.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

But may be a long Ro-Ro deck shall be avoided, as it will penetrate many firewalls. "Modest" Ro-Ro deck with "modest" steel beach will be no big problem, I agree.

Anyway, using for HADR work is just its part-time job, not primary one. Good. Her large crew will also help a lot on HADR tasks (in which case, man-power itself is precious).

Using for LRG, I have no idea. For peaceful operation (which is 90% of the case), yes it is doable. Huge ammunition/food/water to be used for land forces will also be provided. But, if the port is secured, the Point-class (and/or any merchant ship) can do it more efficiently (RAS gears and good damage controls are ALL not needed in such cases). In a high risk region, not sure sending the "precious" SSS is a good idea.

When the CV is not on full-strike roll, I guess the SSS can support US-CVTF (and US cargo supply ship can support UK's in exchange).

Post Reply