Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote:take care of the rest of the fleet??
Or just the escorts, around the QE?

Assume the carrier in the Indian Ocean. How long would the round trip for the other SSS be, to be ready to relieve the one on duty and soon almost empty of stores?
- hence the base in Oman, able to take and turn around the carrier(s). Must have cost a pretty penny for Babcock to build it, but if you can "minus" the cost of one SSS from that bill, then it would start to (?) look like a bargain
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)

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Even after the refit, Fort Victoria will not be using heavy RAS equipment that can handle 5t pallets.

The new FSS have a requirement to be able to transfer to the carrier X days worth of ammunition and stores in X hours. Without heavy RAS rigs, Fort Victoria will never meet this requirement.

Also, heavy RAS rigs are needed to transfer replacement engines for the F35.
One of the key components of the refit is the fitting of newly developed Rolls Royce designed Fast High-capacity Heavy Replenishment at Sea (HRAS) systems.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-fo ... -carriers/
RFA Fort Victoria will emerge from this refit able to transfer stores to the carrier but will still be limited to 2-tonne transfers, primarily because she does not have the internal equipment to handle such large loads
Ah, it missed that last point, so we are refitting Fort Voctoria with a modern HRAS systems but she will still only be able to transfer two tonne loads. Sound like a typically well thought out programme to me.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Aethulwulf »

Defence Committee starts talking about the Fleet Solid Support ships, from about 15:42 onwards in the link below.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... b124c361be

Lots of tedious questions and non-answers about why it is being subject to international competition, but at around 15:56 Gen Poffley says
It [FSS] may not be the first set of orders that we would want to place...on the out turn of the modernising defence programme there are a number of ideas in play that might actually mean there are other opportunities beyond the Fleet Solid Support ships. Indeed one of the reasons we've suggested that this pre-qualification questionnaire sets it at 2 ships + 1 is the precise mix of support ships for the RN is still in debate beyond the two that would be required to support the carrier group
I wonder what are these other ideas in play, which might precede the FSS...

Maybe the +1 ship will not be the same as the other two FSS.

Maybe the +1 ship will be a design for solid support specific to amphibious ops, and also be an Argus replacement.

In which case, could it turn into +2 ships? Could they then also take over from the Bays in their roles in the Caribbean and the Gulf?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Aethulwulf wrote:I wonder what are these other ideas in play, which might precede the FSS...

Maybe the +1 ship will not be the same as the two FSS.

Maybe the +1 ship will cover solid support specific to amphibious ops, and also be an Argus replacement.

In which case, could it turn into +2 ships? Could they then also take over from the Bays in their roles in the Caribbean and the Gulf?
Very Very interesting.

Lots of maybes but if nothing else it shows that serious consideration is being given to the overall balance of the RFA and the wider Amphibious capability rather than just swinging the axe as most expected. Great news!

It also shows that the MDP is along way from being complete which is a pity as it's about time for some clarity after the recent uncertainty.

Hopefully this heralds a return to the original FSS concept with the well dock to help balance the Amphibious fleet and ensure it is fit for purpose through to the 2030's.
Fleet-Solid-Support-Ship-render.jpg
Two of these vessels configured for the FSS role and a third replacing Argus with a 6 Merlin hanger and 3 or 4 landing spots would be a welcome and cost effective result especially if the well docks were double LCU capable.

Lots of options with various possible outcomes but could this be another case of it being cheaper in the long run to build your way out of trouble?

My question would be, with the announcements made already it's difficult to see where a meaningful amount of money is going to be saved to plug the 'black hole'. Are we once again kicking the can down the road or is new money being allocated to plug the gap?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Watching the video it is really annoying how they keep referring to platforms etc. as "Capabilities". It seems that it is no longer permitted to refer to platforms and numbers when ever possible so that the PR announcements can continue to announce capabilities which sound positive as against numbers which can be easily analysed and criticised.

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 »

Aethulwulf wrote:In which case, could it turn into +2 ships? Could they then also take over from the Bays in their roles in the Caribbean and the Gulf?
It's a very intriguing comment.

Considering the sea base and amphibious support requirement has been dropped, it is reasonable to only build one ship for each carrier and do something more interesting with the +1. Now is the perfect time to pick up a deal, with massive over supply in the oil & gas industry. A support vessel in the gulf would be an inexpensive way to refocus the Bay class back on the amphibious role, and provides a good platform for next gen MCM experiments.

Heading to the second hand market could open up the opportunity for a second MRSS (multi-role-support-ship). This could be a positive change in direction, but of course the +1 is also a nice easy target for a cut.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Hopefully this heralds a return to the original FSS concept with the well dock to help balance the Amphibious fleet and ensure it is fit for purpose through to the 2030's.
I expect that's not going to happen. Was told by an attendee at the industry day the sea base requirement is long since dead and the focus is now on a drop in fort replacement.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote: Maybe the +1 ship will not be the same as the other two FSS.

Maybe the +1 ship will be a design for solid support specific to amphibious ops, and also be an Argus replacement.
Thought that,and then it was there in print, as your conclusion, too.
Poiuytrewq wrote:concept with the well dock to help balance the Amphibious fleet
for that third one (will be more expensive)
shark bait wrote: Considering the sea base and amphibious support requirement has been dropped
was put on hold, and as is usual in such cases:
shark bait wrote:the sea base requirement is long since dead and the focus is now on a drop in fort replacement.
- the last quote also covers the other scenario: that the +1 is simply a timing difference. Money to be spent only when the recently refurbed Fort is again on its last legs? Both scenarios make perfect sense... so surely something else :? will happen
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)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by abc123 »

Another cut in disguise?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by S M H »

If the plus one is more operationally designed towards covering other support tasks while providing part solid support it could be advantage. Leaving two to cover carrier support. This would cover as we are would not have two carrier groups at sea unless it was a max U.K. only effort. The third hull is more to lateral support but able to cover carrier support on a stand-in bases this could be a actual increase in support over what we presently have. Providing we actually procure the third hull. That if the Treasury says two will do as we need more efficiency payments.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Maybe more fantasy fleet, but I’d be very keen to see a different approach in place of the 3rd FSS.

I’d argue with the 3 Bays and 4 Points give a decent ability to lift supplies - what is missing is one (or two) ships that can carry the ship-to-shore connectors.

My view, is that we need two ships that can operate:
- 2 LCUs (or similar sized replacements) from a well-dock
- 6 Merlins with hangar space
- 2 Chinooks stored on deck
- A fully kitted hospital

They don’t need to be big, nor do they need large vehicle decks or accommodation, something around 10,000t each IMO.
”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

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote:Maybe more fantasy fleet, but I’d be very keen to see a different approach in place of the 3rd FSS.

I’d argue with the 3 Bays and 4 Points give a decent ability to lift supplies - what is missing is one (or two) ships that can carry the ship-to-shore connectors.
In your plan, both Albion and Bulwark are gone?

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

Interesting table to inform our discussions about the future RFA.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

What do "sponsored reserved" and "FTE" mean?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In your plan, both Albion and Bulwark are gone?
Initially no, maybe the 2nd Albion, but would be looking for a 3rd ship of the class ultimately - as they would also make a solid SF/RM forward base platform.
”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

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What do "sponsored reserved" and "FTE" mean?
Sponsored reserves are civilians who become reservists upon entry into a combat zone inc RFA and crew of the Point Class.

FTE = full time equivalent.

So if two people job-share they are two employees but one FTE.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:My view, is that we need two ships that can operate:
- 2 LCUs (or similar sized replacements) from a well-dock
- 6 Merlins with hangar space
- 2 Chinooks stored on deck
- A fully kitted hospital

They don’t need to be big, nor do they need large vehicle decks or accommodation, something around 10,000t each IMO.
Interesting proposal.

A few queries,
  • Are the LCU's back to back or side by side?
    How many landing spots?
    Would the stored Chinooks affect the operations of the landing spots?
    How big is the hospital?
Do you have an existing design in mind?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

That does sound an awful lot like the Dutch multi-role support ship, which was rather more expensive that what we are intending to spend o on the FSS. I think we need to concentrate on simply getting two conventional FSS in the water and then look at the third as a replacement for Argus with both Helicopter and hospital facilities, with the latter in a containerised format so that when not needed the space can be used to transport stores amongst other things.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Repulse wrote:My view, is that we need two ships that can operate:
- 2 LCUs (or similar sized replacements) from a well-dock
- 6 Merlins with hangar space
- 2 Chinooks stored on deck
- A fully kitted hospital

They don’t need to be big, nor do they need large vehicle decks or accommodation, something around 10,000t each IMO.
Interesting proposal.

A few queries,
  • Are the LCU's back to back or side by side?
    How many landing spots?
    Would the stored Chinooks affect the operations of the landing spots?
    How big is the hospital?
Do you have an existing design in mind?
LCUs would be back to back. Thinking something similar to an extended San Giusto class built to commercial standards, with the rear flight deck a similar size to the Albions, 60 bed (250m2) hospital, and enlarged lifts and hangers (reducing the vehicle deck space). A lot of this is already incorporated in the Qatari Kalaat Béni Abbès version.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:LCUs would be back to back. Thinking something similar to an extended San Giusto class built to commercial standards, with the rear flight deck a similar size to the Albions, 60 bed (250m2) hospital, and enlarged lifts and hangers (reducing the vehicle deck space). A lot of this is already incorporated in the Qatari Kalaat Béni Abbès version.
I think it's an interesting option and not one that appears to be regularly considered.

Normally I would mock it up but that sort of thing has been banned nowadays :shh:

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Go on you know you want to :D


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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: annoying how they keep referring to platforms etc. as "Capabilities"
Being a bit slow, I have finally worked out that Gen. Poffley is Head of Military Capability, so all the "CoM's" for the Commands and their materiel sit under him... there you go: a general talking about ships. Could be an Air Marshall next, and that is fine: jointness!
ArmChairCivvy wrote: shark bait wrote:
Considering the sea base and amphibious support requirement has been dropped

BUT: I said "was put on hold, and as is usual in such cases:

shark bait wrote:
the sea base requirement is long since dead and the focus is now on a drop in fort replacement."


- the last quote also covers the other scenario: that the +1 is simply a timing difference. Money to be spent only when the recently refurbed Fort is again on its last legs?
Now, talking about the 'last legs' ... not before 2026
- and that is for the carriers
- now for the "litop"... add a decade; may be a half will do, if the production runs will be, in any way, related and efficiencies to be reaped
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SKB »



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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Well things are slowly moving forward;

https://www.janes.com/article/84970/uk- ... eplacement

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 »

Interesting to see how it pans out, Cammell Laird won the polar ship from an international tender, so fingers crossed the consortium can win this.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply