Future Solid Support Ship

[abc123]

well if you are on this site when on holiday that is quite sad however I don't care where you are from. There are people on here from all over the world some come with great stuff others talk shit ( and that just a matter of opinion for each of us )

What? I'm no longer a GRU agent from Saint Petersburg/Moscow?

And just when I was getting used to that...

Seriously now, thanks for the kind words.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think 37% is not correct (simply because it is the number proposed from ship-building industry insiders). Surely, Treasury can do the calculation. It is politics, to ORDER Treasury to do it.

HMG tax take is 36.9% of GDP (please see link to a recent IFS study below), so any portion of the project that goes towards increasing UK GDP, rather than another countries, increases HMG's tax take.

Not so easy, I think. If H/W is getting too much "busy" with T31e, they will not bid for other orders (offshore something), and these orders may go abroad. If Appledore gets too busy, they will not get OPV order anymore.

Important thing is, to make these shipyards "not too busy". Also important is to keep constant orders.

If MOD is ordering 1B GBP SSS within UK and the 1.25B GBP T31e at the same time, they will get too busy with them.

Will they increase the labor/engineer force to handle this? No, they can't.

The next order is LSD-replacement, which is far away. And in more future. nothing. AOR will never come back, South Korean bid was very successful.

Hoping for T31e export? No. If I were a shareholder of these companies, if the CEO says he/she will increase labor force to prepare for future T31e export order, I will just fire him as being foolishly optimistic. (If T31e export orders were to come in, just throw away "other orders" (offshore etc) and build these ships. )

If SSS order shall go within UK, I think T31e order must be delayed. If we decide to use T23 up to 36 years-old, Argyll will remain in service till 2027 (+4 year from current plan). Then, following T23GPs in 2028, 2029, 2029, 2030. (T23ASW will be replaced by T26.) This will give us 4 years shift in T31e order, enabling SSS order within UK and still keeping the shipyards relatively empty to enjoy the other orders to come.

[EDIT] Already in the current plan, Northumberland, Richmond and Somerset are to be used up to 35 years old.

[Poiuytrewq]

....I think T31e order must be delayed. If we decide to use T23 up to 36 years-old......

.....This will give us 4 years shift in T31e order....

This is my preferred outcome. Ease the pressure on the T31 time frame and take the opportunity to create an innovative but not necessarily complicated or expensive UK owned design to give RN a vessel it really needs and wants.

How would this 4 year delay affect the budget one way or another?

It would be great to see the FSS vessels built in the UK but it must fit into a wider plan and not cause bottlenecks and 'feast or famine' down the line.

[ViscountViktor]

I hope FSS can go to UK yards.

If CL get Type 31, Babcock could get FSS and use all the partners that were interested in Type 31.

[Repulse]

IMO it would be better is CL got the new RFAs to regain experience in building larger ships with a eye on a few Sea Control Carriers starting build later in the 2020s.

Appledore needs work (and is key for UK ship building capability) - give them the T31 building a BAE design under license. They need to be there when we want to build the MHPC...

[shark bait]

Appledore needs work (and is key for UK ship building capability

No it isn't. Appledore could shut down and the Navy wouldn't even blink.

There is nothing they do in that part of Devon that isn't done elsewhere, it is not a key part of industry.

[Repulse]

Appledore needs work (and is key for UK ship building capability

No it isn't. Appledore could shut down and the Navy wouldn't even blink.

There is nothing they do in that part of Devon that isn't done elsewhere, it is not a key part of industry.

What nonsense. It’s the last ship builder in the England with a track record in the last 10 years, and I’d argue with the best track record in the past 20 years for building minor warships now that VT / BAE Portsmouth is closed.

I think you are letting the love of Polar Research ships get the better of you - the RN needs first class ships that are smaller than a Frigate also.

[shark bait]

So why it is key? What is unique about Appledoor that is not done elsewhere in the country?

[SKB]

Anywhere but Scotland, they already have T26, River and eventually T31 to build.

[Repulse]

So why it is key? What is unique about Appledoor that is not done elsewhere in the country?

They have a skilled workforce that has built both Survey and Patrol ships.

[Poiuytrewq]

So why it is key? What is unique about Appledoor that is not done elsewhere in the country?

They have a skilled workforce that has built both Survey and Patrol ships.

In recent years Appledore has been a model of efficiency and I for one would be very sad to see such a well managed yard decline due to a lack of support from HMG.

If the NSBS is ever to succeed its yards like Appledore that should be at the forefront of any renaissance of UK shipbuilding.

[shark bait]

They have a skilled workforce that has built both Survey and Patrol ships.

There are skilled naval fabricators all over the country, that's not unique to Appledoor.

[Ron5]

Appledore doesn't have the facilities to build a 120m frigate so the debate is moot. Or moo if you are a Friends fan.

[Poiuytrewq]

Appledore doesn't have the facilities to build a 120m frigate so the debate is moot. Or moo if you are a Friends fan.

On the other hand a 98m Venari would fit a treat

[Caribbean]

Appledore doesn't have the facilities to build a 120m frigate so the debate is moot. Or moo if you are a Friends fan.

They squeezed in the 131m x 21.5m HMS Scott by laying her out diagonally, so they should be able to handle a 120m frigate, even if it's not ideal.

[Ron5]

A frigate is a lot more complicated than a survey ship but I get your point.

[Lord Jim]

Whilst reading a recent magazine I noticed that Fort Victoria is undergoing a major refit to become more effective as a Solid Stores Ship to support the QE. She is now expected to remain in service until the end of the 2020s at the earliest.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Whilst reading a recent magazine I noticed that Fort Victoria is undergoing a major refit to become more effective as a Solid Stores Ship to support the QE. She is now expected to remain in service until the end of the 2020s at the earliest.

The double-hull'ing suggests that fuel supply capacity will be retained. But what kind fuel (ref. working with the carriers)? Also, the question whether the (alleged) £1 bn reserved for SSS will buy 2 or 3 is open - is the quoted piece a pointer to what the MoD believes about this?

[Lord Jim]

It appears the main driver behind the refit is to improve its ability to transfer stores to the new Carriers. However if she can do the job and has newer legs there could be a case for only two FSS platforms, either built to include greater capabilities within the same budget or a portion of the budget moved elsewhere where it is believed to be more urgently needed.

[Aethulwulf]

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.

[Ron5]

Also, heavy RAS is needed to transfer replacement engines for the F35.

The older US carriers don't have that either, hence the USN's CMV-22Bs.

[dmereifield]

So one FFS for each carrier, and Fort Victoria, for however long she can soldier on for, along with any excess capacity from the two FSS when the carriers are not deployed, take care of the rest of the fleet??

[Lord Jim]

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.

[Scimitar54]

Even after the refit, she will still only be able to transfer 2 ton loads. An interim solution to supplying the QE class until the arrival of the future SSS.

[Aethulwulf]

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