UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 19:57

pcrs as a modular system would work. the Karel Doorman was built in romania her air defences are 2xgoalkeepers.
her hanger can take chinook. With the rolls royce heavy ras system i suspect the way ras is managed will change if you can transfare containers of stores instead of pallets it will speed the system up. A vessel like that could mean replacing Fort victoria, Fort Austin, Fort Rosalie and Argus with 2 preferably 3 ships

chinook is a great asset however it needs folding blade rotor hubs.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 May 2015, 20:23

modular, who said modular could work?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rapaho.htm

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 20:35

RFA reliant tried the concept in the 80's

but you need a decent baseline vessel to start with

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 May 2015, 20:41

One of the Points?

This concept was something that you would roll onto the shore after the initial stages, so the Point would then become available for the normal jogging.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 21:06

thats what an army field hospital does!
PCRS is slightly different has extra facilities a field hospital can't provide.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 25 May 2015, 21:47

marktigger wrote:pcrs as a modular system would work. the Karel Doorman was built in romania her air defences are 2xgoalkeepers.
her hanger can take chinook. With the rolls royce heavy ras system i suspect the way ras is managed will change if you can transfare containers of stores instead of pallets it will speed the system up. A vessel like that could mean replacing Fort victoria, Fort Austin, Fort Rosalie and Argus with 2 preferably 3 ships



I would agree. It could also replace Albions, albeit with a small drop in capability but big savings.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 21:57

I would say 3 would be kept busy supporting the carriers in times of crisis or on an op in lieu of a frigate or destroyer.

I would like to see the forts replaced 1 for 1 same with argus

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 01 Jun 2015, 11:12

marktigger wrote:I would say 3 would be kept busy supporting the carriers in times of crisis or on an op in lieu of a frigate or destroyer.

I would like to see the forts replaced 1 for 1 same with argus


I would also say 3 would be kept busy, the carriers will have a very large logistics footprint for sure. Keeping one of those going will be a big task, which is partly why a new ship is needed to do the job effectively.

The 3 small leaf and rover class tankers are being replaced by 4 massive tide class to meet the challenge, hopefully the solid support will follow the same way. Assuming the RFA need to encourage more people to work for them though.
@LandSharkUK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby arfah » 09 Sep 2015, 22:00

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 10 Sep 2015, 22:28

the polish ship looks allot smaller

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 10 Sep 2015, 22:46

marktigger wrote:the polish ship looks allot smaller


it does, only 139.6 meters, hopefully they will be much bigger. They will have to be to support the carriers.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 11 Sep 2015, 13:31

with Ark royal there was RFA Lynness she was dedicated to supplying avation support

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby hovematlot » 11 Sep 2015, 18:24

marktigger wrote:with Ark royal there was RFA Lynness she was dedicated to supplying avation support


Indeed, then we flogged her to the states, they got about 5 years service from her as the USNS Siruis.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 12 Sep 2015, 23:57

Image

Nicest render I've seen of the ship.
Nice to see a landing craft on the side there, lets hope that comes into fruition.
@LandSharkUK

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 13 Sep 2015, 01:18

I'm assuming that is the SSS? If so, excellent find. It is a very nice render indeed.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Gabriele » 13 Sep 2015, 08:52

That is a proposed design for the MARS SSS. It has a well deck for an LCU, or at least a steel beach in the back, and carries two LCVPs. In the render you can see the RoRo ramp which would enable the embarkation of vehicles on the cargo deck ahead of the well deck.

Building it in this shape would enable her to perhaps take up the roles of both the Bay and the supply ship stationed in the Gulf, releasing the Bay back to the amphibious role.
And a MARS SSS with that capability, within the Task Group, would itself make up in part or entirely for the loss of the (limited) vehicle carrying and offloading ability of HMS Ocean, with a better offload capability as well (well deck / steel beach instead of ramp and pontoon, which i would think is bound to suffer the sea state quite a lot more).

MARS SSS is one key programme waiting for the start of its next phase, and one which could help a lot in making up for some very serious trouble with amphibious capability in the next few years, if the route traced by that concept is followed.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 13 Sep 2015, 10:11

Gabriele wrote:That is a proposed design for the MARS SSS. It has a well deck for an LCU, or at least a steel beach in the back, and carries two LCVPs. In the render you can see the RoRo ramp which would enable the embarkation of vehicles on the cargo deck ahead of the well deck.

Building it in this shape would enable her to perhaps take up the roles of both the Bay and the supply ship stationed in the Gulf, releasing the Bay back to the amphibious role.
And a MARS SSS with that capability, within the Task Group, would itself make up in part or entirely for the loss of the (limited) vehicle carrying and offloading ability of HMS Ocean, with a better offload capability as well (well deck / steel beach instead of ramp and pontoon, which i would think is bound to suffer the sea state quite a lot more).

MARS SSS is one key programme waiting for the start of its next phase, and one which could help a lot in making up for some very serious trouble with amphibious capability in the next few years, if the route traced by that concept is followed.



Absolutely a key program, it is vital to deploy the carriers effectively, and then there are the additional roles. After the SDSR the government mixed the joint sea base and fleet support ship so there is the potential for many other roles. Thing is, how many extra roles can be squeezed in before we start to compromise on the replenishment role of the ship.

Clearly aviation capability is vital for replenishment so it needs a hanger and flight deck. Luckily it seems it will be a huge flight deck and hanger which is great and opens up many extra roles, so there are no conflicts here.

I think the amphibious roles come from the joint sea base and I think here there is a danger of going too far and conflicts in role's. A RORO deck seems sensible, some extra vehicle lames are always welcome as long as they can be repurposed as container storage for filling the carriers with transport to the RAS masts. Whilst a well deck would be great, there is a worry this will add to the complexity and take up valuable space reducing its ability to replenish at sea. The steel beach you mentioned is the perfect answer in my opinion, small cheap and simple and squeezed out some extra utility from an auxiliary.

I think what I am describing is alot like the Dutch karel doorman support ship, which I think is a good starting point for ours. I think it shows what is realistic and achievable for such a ship. The Dutch did have there problems with the ship, but they where financial not technical.

Ultimately a similar ship is capable of multiple roles without compromising on the replenishment utility. Such a ship could act as a sea base, it has the capability to land special forces, or support smaller ships on sustained ops. It would be the perfect patrol boat with the capability to deploy significant air assets, force protection craft, and the stores to responsde to a crisis very quickly. Some amphibious capabilities, especially with self deploying vehicles. And a few others no doubt
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Sep 2015, 10:11

It is a better angle than seen before, the same details clearer, which invites comparison with Karel Doorman
- only one self defence weapon; KD has all four "corners" with RWS, too, to cover all angles, including close up

KD is a different class of ship, the translation from Dutch has suffered by dropping one word from the middle of JSS ("Logistics"). Ie. logistics both for the army and resupply on the seas.
- she has the steel beach
- will SSS have it (supporting troops ashore would be a minor role in its profile, yes?)? If so, it would be enhanced by a mexaflote enlarging the usable area. Can't see one (carried) on any of the renders so far.

LCPs: The RM trials with a Dutch CB90 on loan proved that the same davits would work. As the trials were not reported on afterwards, maybe it was all about a force protection boat that compared to the current one would have
-more range
- more rough seas capability... more of everything. Pure speculation, of course, no announcements or such requirement has met my eye

EDIT: Gaby is up earlier than me (time zone advantage?) and also seems to have better eyes than me, confirming " It has a well deck for an LCU, or at least a steel beach in the back". Relative to the well deck/ LCU (the "or" must mean still to be confirmed?) it is interesting that for the ship-to-shore optimisation study, it and its successor were made "immune" from considering any alternatives, e.g. the LCAC (horrendously expensive to operate).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Sep 2015, 10:22

Great minds etc... A comment on the comment[, used capitals for readability]:

"I think the amphibious roles come from the joint sea base and I think here there is a danger of going too far and conflicts in role's. [ AGREE, WOULD WE LIKE OUR TROOPS AND THEIR VEHICLES ENTERING A WAR ZONE SURROUNDED BY VAST QUANTITIES OF FLAMMABLE FUELS, AVCAT ESPECIALLY SO?] A RORO deck seems sensible, some extra vehicle lames are always welcome as long as they can be repurposed as container storage for filling the carriers with transport to the RAS masts. [THE MASTS ARE ON THE SENDING SIDE, THE OPENINGS AFFORDED BY THE A/C LIFTS SUFFICE ON THE OTHER... S.B. MAY HAVE MEANT THIS, NOT SURE IF IT JUST THE GRAMMAR] Whilst a well deck would be great, there is a worry this will add to the complexity and take up valuable space reducing its ability to replenish at sea. The steel beach you mentioned is the perfect answer in my opinion [IN MINE, TOO. IN ROUGH SEAS IT IS MORE RESILIENT, BUT ADDING A MEXEFLOTE IN CALMER WATERS WOULD ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY. COMPARE TO A SUPERMARKET ONLY HAVING A BUS STOP AND A DROPPING OFF ZONE COMPARED TO ANOTHER WITH A PARKING LOT], small cheap and simple and squeezed out some extra utility from an auxiliary. "

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Gabriele » 13 Sep 2015, 10:32

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Great minds etc... A comment on the comment[, used capitals for readability]:

"I think the amphibious roles come from the joint sea base and I think here there is a danger of going too far and conflicts in role's. [ AGREE, WOULD WE LIKE OUR TROOPS AND THEIR VEHICLES ENTERING A WAR ZONE SURROUNDED BY VAST QUANTITIES OF FLAMMABLE FUELS, AVCAT ESPECIALLY SO?] A RORO deck seems sensible, some extra vehicle lames are always welcome as long as they can be repurposed as container storage for filling the carriers with transport to the RAS masts. [THE MASTS ARE ON THE SENDING SIDE, THE OPENINGS AFFORDED BY THE A/C LIFTS SUFFICE ON THE OTHER... S.B. MAY HAVE MEANT THIS, NOT SURE IF IT JUST THE GRAMMAR] Whilst a well deck would be great, there is a worry this will add to the complexity and take up valuable space reducing its ability to replenish at sea. The steel beach you mentioned is the perfect answer in my opinion [IN MINE, TOO. IN ROUGH SEAS IT IS MORE RESILIENT, BUT ADDING A MEXEFLOTE IN CALMER WATERS WOULD ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY. COMPARE TO A SUPERMARKET ONLY HAVING A BUS STOP AND A DROPPING OFF ZONE COMPARED TO ANOTHER WITH A PARKING LOT], small cheap and simple and squeezed out some extra utility from an auxiliary. "



Unlike the Fort Victoria which is a dual tanker and solid carrier, the MARS SSS will not carry fuel, for all i know. Or better, of course it'll carry her own and quite a bit of aviation fuel since she is going to have a big hangar capable to take at least 3 Merlin. But she is meant to carry stores, from ammunition to spare parts.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Sep 2015, 10:41

Gaby, OK.

That is good, and explains why there is RASsing from both sides of the carrier (potentially at the same; and even if not, it takes time to clear the already RASsed items away from the openings)
- however, if we won't get the planned 3, the design might migrate back more towards Ft V's combo?

Shall we decide the "R"in the AOR designation stands for a Reefer, as the dry goods capacity is mainly deck stored (and chilled) containers, optimised for food, in addition to doing the Oiler function?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Gabriele » 13 Sep 2015, 10:53

The MARS SSS will come up on the lifts side of HMS Queen Elizabeth, and it is right through the openings of the two elevators that the big pallets will be moved on, like on US CVNs. She will carry food, spare parts, bombs, missiles, spare F-35B engines etcetera.

Fuel will come in from two RAS stations on the opposite side, and will come via a Tide class tanker or a Wave.

The MARS SSS is a modern day Fort Austin, a Solid Support Ship, not an AOR. And it is unlikely that this will change, since all four Tide tankers are coming together. The fuel side of the equation is arguably solved; what is left to fix is stores and support to the amphibious force, with the second made even more urgent by the impending loss of HMS Ocean in a few years time.

In the earlier phases of MARS, the split was: tankers, solid support, amphibious support. That was financially unfeasible, so a compromise Stores + Amphibious will be needed. With the evolving situation of amphibious shipping, that compromise is even more key: like it or not, the only options left at this point are doing with carriers + MARS SSS, or not doing at all.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5990
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 13 Sep 2015, 11:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A RORO deck seems sensible, some extra vehicle lames are always welcome as long as they can be repurposed as container storage for filling the carriers with transport to the RAS masts. [THE MASTS ARE ON THE SENDING SIDE, THE OPENINGS AFFORDED BY THE A/C LIFTS SUFFICE ON THE OTHER... S.B. MAY HAVE MEANT THIS, NOT SURE IF IT JUST THE GRAMMAR]


They are indeed, not quite what I meant though, my bad grammar. The new replenishment at sea system will be capable of moving much larger pallets. Now you can fill the vehicle deck with extra stores, but you need to get them to the masts effectivly as stores could be over 100m away. A gantry crane similar to the Albion's will be useful to get all the heavy kit to a suitability placed lift, the you can make full use of all the space you have.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The steel beach you mentioned is the perfect answer in my opinion [IN MINE, TOO. IN ROUGH SEAS IT IS MORE RESILIENT, BUT ADDING A MEXEFLOTE IN CALMER WATERS WOULD ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY.


Yes, I like the idea of having a mexeflote strapped on the side bay style. I suppose we would need to buy new ones which would be interesting since the system is old.

It certainly would enhance the capability and would definitely come in use in a disaster relief role.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4597
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby marktigger » 13 Sep 2015, 12:00

a vehicle deck can also if big enough house a PCRS (primary casualty reception ship) facility though the legalities could get interesting.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 13 Sep 2015, 13:50

ArmChairCivvy wrote:It is a better angle than seen before, the same details clearer, which invites comparison with Karel Doorman
- only one self defence weapon; KD has all four "corners" with RWS, too, to cover all angles, including close up


If you look closely she is fitted with 3 Phalanx CIWS - one at the bow, obviously and the remaining two situated in opposing corners located with the funnel on the rearmost part of the superstructure. You can just see the radar dome of the far side system sticking up above the superstructure itself.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests