UK Defence Forum

Tempest414 wrote:

SW1 wrote:I thought the fort1 are laid up/scrapped up as well?. Fort Victoria is the only one left

I think we are talking at cross purposes here my point is that in 2011 we should let one or both of the Fort 1's go as at that time they were 30+ years old and kept Fort George that in 2011 was only 18 years into service we could have even rotated the two Fort 11's as we have done with Albion's and Waves we may have been in a better place now

Yeah I agree it perhaps would of been better to do that, but the two older fort vessels were essentially placed in “refit” in 2013/14 and have never appeared since so arguably keeping the other fort would have lasted little beyond a year and half. They all had issues in not being double hulled and the need to find crew for the tide tankers. I personally don’t think placing ships in mothballs for 6 years at a time is a particularly good idea.

So with the talk of a multi role ship now being pushed about maybe a modified Den Helder class could work at a cost of 375 million euros

No need to put fuel stores in there, takes up too much room, and storing ammunition next to fuel is a bit of an arse.

If we want to be able to operate out Carriers as we intend to we need the FSS period. Any Multirole ship or Littoral Strike Ship programmes need to be firmly on the "Nice to have", list for the foreseeable future.

With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation. We should retire a number of T-23 (GP) sooner than later, and maybe pass the B1 River to the Coastguard agency as long range cutters.

Its unlikely the Navy will gets its FSS within foreseeable future because there's no where to build it.

Based on industrial capacity, the sensible thing is build these after the T31 build has complete, which pushes the date out towards 2030, which is a long time to wait. If the ships are still needed on the original timeline they'll have to buy a foreign design and have it build abroad.

They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.

Lord Jim wrote:With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation.

The first para, above, would be a good input onto the SDSR thread: what not to delay/ freeze, until the opportune time for an in-depth integrated review.

AS FOR the Albions, they learned from the previous 'swap' and the allocated ship's company is now forty, instead of 11, to keep all systems running - while the sip is not sailing.

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.

I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.

Lord Jim wrote:If we want to be able to operate out Carriers as we intend to we need the FSS period. Any Multirole ship or Littoral Strike Ship programmes need to be firmly on the "Nice to have", list for the foreseeable future.

With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation. We should retire a number of T-23 (GP) sooner than later, and maybe pass the B1 River to the Coastguard agency as long range cutters.

About next 5 T26, they are so far in the future that you can order next 15 T26 as well. Until some meaningful work starts about them, this crisis will be as forgotten as Zika virus or 2008 recession. On the other hand, maybe T31 will be postponed? Just one FSS? It makes no sense.
But yes, Crowsnest, T45 re-engining are the priority for the RN. And not selling the PoW.

abc123 wrote:next 15 T26

Good thinking.

18 in total sounds about right!

Ron5 wrote:

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.

I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.

Sorry - am I missing something? I was under the impression that both were on time on budget. Sure you're not confusing them with the Fergusons Ferry Fiasco?

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds

They could, but I feel like that's setting yourself up to fail. The MOD could create enough demand for 2 shipyards, but not three, so it's paying to start up production, then paying again to shut it down.

Plus, remember CL didn't have the credentials to run the T31 bid on their own.

SD67 wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.

I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.

Sorry - am I missing something? I was under the impression that both were on time on budget. Sure you're not confusing them with the Fergusons Ferry Fiasco?

Check again.

Scimitar54 wrote:18 in total sounds about right!

Indeed. At least 15.

“The Defence Secretary told the Defence Select Committee yesterday that the Fleet Solid Support ship competition will be re-opened soon, probably in September.

The Multi Role Support Ship is not a viable solution for the FSS requirement“

Looks like common sense prevailed when it comes to the SSS. Don’t get me wrong I think a multi role vessel or 2 could fit in well just not in place of the SSS, IMO they’d be a perfect replacement for the waves as and when.

To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

SW1 wrote:To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

There has been rumours going around that in place of the SSS, LSS and maybe even the Albion’s that multi roles ships such as the Ellida concept will be purchased. It seems he is putting these rumours to bed at least for the SSS

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

There has been rumours going around that in place of the SSS, LSS and maybe even the Albion’s that multi roles ships such as the Ellida concept will be purchased. It seems he is putting these rumours to bed at least for the SSS

I ask because I would class Fort Victoria as a multi role support ship so is he saying it isn’t?

I doubt that more likely the others u mention go without replacements

SW1 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

There has been rumours going around that in place of the SSS, LSS and maybe even the Albion’s that multi roles ships such as the Ellida concept will be purchased. It seems he is putting these rumours to bed at least for the SSS

I ask because I would class Fort Victoria as a multi role support ship so is he saying it isn’t?

I doubt that more likely the others u mention go without replacements

Victory is more of a stop gap until the new SSS are built, I can’t quite remember if she had to have her fuel storage double hulled or if it’s been done away with, if it’s the later then I’d say she’s no longer multi role.

The idea that way being floated around was to basically do away with the SSS, LSS and Albion’s and replace them with an Elida style design that would give solid store, fuel, a large vehicle deck, a small well dock and troop capacity all in one. If this had gone ahead the QEs would never of been able to do high intensity ops as these new vessels wouldn’t be able to hold or transfer enough dry stores.
So to me when he’s talking about multi role not being fit in the same breaths as SSS it sounds very much like the above was recognised.

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

There has been rumours going around that in place of the SSS, LSS and maybe even the Albion’s that multi roles ships such as the Ellida concept will be purchased. It seems he is putting these rumours to bed at least for the SSS

I ask because I would class Fort Victoria as a multi role support ship so is he saying it isn’t?

I doubt that more likely the others u mention go without replacements

Victory is more of a stop gap until the new SSS are built, I can’t quite remember if she had to have her fuel storage double hulled or if it’s been done away with, if it’s the later then I’d say she’s no longer multi role.

The idea that way being floated around was to basically do away with the SSS, LSS and Albion’s and replace them with an Elida style design that would give solid store, fuel, a large vehicle deck, a small well dock and troop capacity all in one. If this had gone ahead the QEs would never of been able to do high intensity ops as these new vessels wouldn’t be able to hold or transfer enough dry stores.
So to me when he’s talking about multi role not being fit in the same breaths as SSS it sounds very much like the above was recognised.

The point I’m making is concepts like the ellida maybe not be off the table the configuration is by design adaptable and could well be done to suit the RN being solid stores only, have less vehicle capacity ect ect. Fuel is unlikely to come into it as that’s what the tides are for. The use or availability of a well dock maybe of interest in such a vessel if in a future logistics role part of that is transport of unmanned or small craft as part of a task group or independent deployment or for disaster relief.

Why I mention fort Victoria is because she can carry up to 5 helicopters and up to around 200 personnel above her crew requirement. Hosted marine groups of Yemen for embassy evac, acted as a hq for the pirate task group out in the Indian Ocean and much more besides. She is a stores ship that is large enough to do other things.

It’s not that the concepts are trying to replace like for like what Albion and the rest are currently doing it’s specifically that they are not and that the marines will not be operating as they were before hence such ship concepts will allow them to operate more like Fort Victoria has, with the others simply going without replacement. It will be interesting how things develop.

SW1 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

SW1 wrote:To what multi role support ship was he referring or just a general statement

There has been rumours going around that in place of the SSS, LSS and maybe even the Albion’s that multi roles ships such as the Ellida concept will be purchased. It seems he is putting these rumours to bed at least for the SSS

I ask because I would class Fort Victoria as a multi role support ship so is he saying it isn’t?

I doubt that more likely the others u mention go without replacements

Victory is more of a stop gap until the new SSS are built, I can’t quite remember if she had to have her fuel storage double hulled or if it’s been done away with, if it’s the later then I’d say she’s no longer multi role.

The idea that way being floated around was to basically do away with the SSS, LSS and Albion’s and replace them with an Elida style design that would give solid store, fuel, a large vehicle deck, a small well dock and troop capacity all in one. If this had gone ahead the QEs would never of been able to do high intensity ops as these new vessels wouldn’t be able to hold or transfer enough dry stores.
So to me when he’s talking about multi role not being fit in the same breaths as SSS it sounds very much like the above was recognised.

The point I’m making is concepts like the ellida maybe not be off the table the configuration is by design adaptable and could well be done to suit the RN being solid stores only, have less vehicle capacity ect ect. Fuel is unlikely to come into it as that’s what the tides are for. The use or availability of a well dock maybe of interest in such a vessel if in a future logistics role part of that is transport of unmanned or small craft as part of a task group or independent deployment or for disaster relief.

Why I mention fort Victoria is because she can carry up to 5 helicopters and up to around 200 personnel above her crew requirement. Hosted marine groups of Yemen for embassy evac, acted as a hq for the pirate task group out in the Indian Ocean and much more besides. She is a stores ship that is large enough to do other things.

It’s not that the concepts are trying to replace like for like what Albion and the rest are currently doing it’s specifically that they are not and that the marines will not be operating as they were before hence such ship concepts will allow them to operate more like Fort Victoria has, with the others simply going without replacement. It will be interesting how things develop.

A redesign of the Elida concept focusing more on solid stores could be put forward no doubt but not the current design as is.

Victory can do other role due to its large helo capacity but that more due to the fact that it was design to be one of the core elitments of a Cold War ASW group, this is why it also has space for AAW Missiles. What I was getting at though is even though it can do other things doesn’t mean it’s replacement should to that extent and that victory being used as an SSS is more to do with that we have her so are making use of her and not with the premise that she’ll be multi role.

I am not saying that a multi role vessel won’t replace other existing vessel and that it won’t be the right route to take in other areas, but just pointed out that it appears that common sense has been used in regard to a multi role trying to replace SSS.

Personal though I believe we still need separate LPD/LSDs and the a multi role would be better at replacing the waves along with the LSS idea.

Jake1992 wrote:can’t quite remember if she had to have her fuel storage double hulled or if it’s been done away with

I believe that was done in her refit 2017-2018.

Minimum is we need two Fort I replacements- pure stores, and would argue single helicopter hangar. Fuel comes from the Tides. Given the budget pressure, let’s keep it simple.

In parallel keep RFA Victoria running as a backup for the next 10 years, and then replace, perhaps basing EoS to be part of a forward based Task Group which would have a LPD also.

BMT have been crystal clear that their Ellida design is not suitable for supporting the carriers. I wish folks would stop bring it up. Different ship for totally different requirement.