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.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 25 Aug 2019, 13:12

Poiuytrewq wrote:
RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Have you any credible source to back that up?
Nope. But apart from a single speech and a few Tweets by people no longer in-post what's the evidence for it being a requirement?
Two separate things. With the complete lack of embarked aviation on the LPD's and Ocean now decommissioned the requirement clearly exists. The FLSS was Gavin Williamson's attempt to meet the requirement with the funds available but it could be achieved in other ways.

With the Bays tied up in the Gulf/Carribean and also now starting to experiment in the MCM role it is difficult to see how the CHF is going to operate if the CSG is active without additional platforms being procured.
Jake1992 wrote:This is what Iv always said we should base the future LPD / LSD replacements on, if done right we could end up with 9 vessels of 3-4 different classes based on the same parent design giving a great deal of commonality for the build process.
Maybe, but one step at a time.....we are a long way away from replacing the Amphibs.
Jake1992 wrote:I though that design though was said to be between 205m -215m by 30-32m, which would make more sense since it was craming a lot on top of the large SS requirement needed.
I was estimating in deliberately vague terms as I have never been able to find any published specification for that FSS concept. If you have one I would interested to see it.


I agree it’s a long way off but a well planned out route of design and build over the next decade is what’s needed not to end up how we have with the escorts with the life ex and delays.
It wasn’t much just when I was scrolling through google looking for info on it I came across an image with a link in the chat it gave those measurements but not sure if that’s just someone’s option or not, it would make sends though with everything that’s in the design

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 25 Aug 2019, 15:16

Poiuytrewq wrote: Littoral Support Ships

Drat - beat me to it! Much better name for it.
RichardIC wrote:The FLSS requirement went away when Gavin Williamson got sacked.

I doubt this had much to do with Williamson. I'm pretty sure that this requirement has been around for some time, in the guise of the Argus replacement. Rather than a like-for-like replacement, the requirement has been updated to include small boat facilities and enhanced logistics capabilities, which are respectively non-existent or very limited on Argus. If the plan goes to fruition, the end result will be a very flexible vessel, suitable for a great many roles.
RichardIC wrote:Which project team does it sit under?

The last official announcement was that money had been allocated from the innovation fund to determine requirements and feasability. I doubt we'll hear much more until that is completed.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 09:49

Save the Royal Navy is reporting that Navantia (in partnership with BMT) is going to present their FSS design at DSEi based on the Cantabria AOR design that has also been chosen for the Royal Australian Navy as their Supply Class AOR (the second of which was launched a week ago).

Can't help but think this is a bit of a throwaway bid, it's a 19,500 tonne ship. Can it compete with other bids? I suspect its at the lower end of the size band. A new build Fort Victoria Class would be far more capable...I suspect an updated Fort Rosalie Class might be as well...

Surprised that BMT are involved in this, have Navantia realised that they have no chance politically? Can't say I'm unhappy as this looks like Navantia are as good as throwing the towel in. The graphics showing a Tide Class derivative from the MoD are now null and void as thats a BMT design.



https://navantia.com.au/capabilities/re ... t-vessels/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-cl ... ment_oiler

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 09 Sep 2019, 10:50

If Navantia are releasing their design this week then your figures above have been made up.

And the "Tide Class derivative" graphic was not from BMT, it came from the MOD's naval design partnering office, I think it was just a mock up to make their power points look nice.
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 10:54

shark bait wrote:If Navantia are releasing their design this week then your figures above have been made up.


Thats the size of a Cantabria/Supply Class ship that the design is based on. I've included it for an idea on scale.

shark bait wrote:And the "Tide Class derivative" graphic was not from BMT, it came from the MOD's naval design partnering office, I think it was just a mock up to make their power points look nice.


I think I made that clear in the post....

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 09 Sep 2019, 11:11

I didn't think it was clear. Unfortunately I don't believe there has been a "Tide Class derivative", instead there has been two graphics demonstrating different super structure configurations, either with the bridge forward like the Fort Class, or the bridge aft like the USNS T-AKE class.

It's a shame, it would be very nice to have a supply fleet with a common machinery space.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 09 Sep 2019, 11:44

shark bait wrote:....there has been two graphics demonstrating different super structure configurations, either with the bridge forward like the Fort Class, or the bridge aft like the USNS T-AKE class.
Bridge forward please :thumbup:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 09 Sep 2019, 11:52

Timmymagic wrote:Thats the size of a Cantabria/Supply Class ship that the design is based on. I've included it for an idea on scale.
The Navantia design is supposed to be the front runner so it must be substantially larger than a 20k tonne class vessel. It will be interesting to see what BMT have done with the Cantabria design. Shouldn't have to wait long to find out....

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 12:26

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Navantia design is supposed to be the front runner so it must be substantially larger than a 20k tonne class vessel.


I've not seen anyone say that before (not saying they haven't) but I'd be amazed if politically it is feasible, particularly given the 'Buy British' rumours regarding defence procurement in the last few days.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 614
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 09 Sep 2019, 13:18

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Navantia design is supposed to be the front runner so it must be substantially larger than a 20k tonne class vessel. It will be interesting to see what BMT have done with the Cantabria design. Shouldn't have to wait long to find out....


What makes you think it's the front-runner?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 09 Sep 2019, 13:56

RichardIC wrote:What makes you think it's the front-runner?
Lots of chat that Navantia was being lined up as preferred bidder but things may have moved on with this new Bojo lead administration.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/reports ... ar-claims/

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Sep 2019, 14:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:Lots of chat that Navantia was being lined up as preferred bidder but things may have moved on with this new Bojo lead administration.


Yes....GMB Union in a Scottish newspaper...
They don't have an inside track, just part of the usual politicking. If anything its designed more to discourage any chance of a Spanish bid succeeding.

I'd put the chance of the Navantia bid right at the bottom of the pile, behind France with its more modern and larger Vulcano design, second place would be the Japanese. There is a lot of potential co-operation with the Japanese, they build good ships and are also looking for a new class to replace the Towada Class at the moment, its scale will be more to the UK's liking. But right now anyone betting against a UK design/build in the current political situation needs their head examining.

Just can't see how they can scale up the Cantabria into a dedicated Stores Ship that comes close to replacing the 3 Fort's.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 614
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 09 Sep 2019, 14:33

Poiuytrewq wrote:Lots of chat that Navantia was being lined up as preferred bidder but things may have moved on with this new Bojo lead administration.


So that's based on a story in the Daily Record quoting the SNP and GMB! C'mon please.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 09 Sep 2019, 14:44

We shall find out a bit more tomorrow morning at 10am.

https://www.navantia.es/en/dsei-2019/

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Aethulwulf » 10 Sep 2019, 10:45

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.navantia.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BMT-Navantia-FSS-Brochure-Non-OS-Version-Digital-210x297mm-1-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiQ1YnC-sXkAhXoQkEAHSeIDjYQFjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1VZ-zWVlpD_9OoetNDgFQS

Details of the BMT Navantia FSS design. Strongly based on the Tide class...

Graphic shows the ship with two Phalanx and what appears to be DS30M 30 mm gun fitted with LMM. Interesting that BMT / Navantia appears to believe that this will become a standard fit.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Sep 2019, 10:56

Aethulwulf wrote:Details of the BMT Navantia FSS design. Strongly based on the Tide class...


It's weird, everyone has been saying its based on the Supply Class/Cantabria offering. Now the brochure has a Tide Class derivative image, the same one that was published in 2018 by the MoD/DSEI (based on BMT's work) that everyone has been saying was just a stock CGI that had been knocked up.
Seems it was hiding in plain sight for ever...

Doesn't seem to have the shaping at the rear of the helideck that the Tides have, which is odd.

Still can't see it get built in Spain though...why did no-one in the UK partner with BMT?

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Aethulwulf » 10 Sep 2019, 12:23

Who knows, maybe Navantia will buy Harland and Wolff and the build a UK design in a UK shipyard (owned by a Spanish company).

;) :?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Sep 2019, 12:28

Aethulwulf wrote:Who knows, maybe Navantia will buy Harland and Wolff and the build a UK design in a UK shipyard (owned by a Spanish company).


They've also tweeted out an image of the original MARS SSS today...think someone in their press team needs to have a word...

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 10 Sep 2019, 12:34

That's a bit of a curve ball, was fully expecting a modified version of their existing design, but this looks much more promising.

I'm excited to hear more, a supply fleet with common machinery spaces would be very nice.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 614
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby RichardIC » 10 Sep 2019, 12:55

Aethulwulf wrote:Who knows, maybe Navantia will buy Harland and Wolff and the build a UK design in a UK shipyard (owned by a Spanish company).


Harland and Wolff has a workforce of 130. And you don't just recruit a trained and skilled workforce overnight. So where do you get them from?

Easyjet fly from Madrid to Belfast. So much for British jobs.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Sep 2019, 13:16

RichardIC wrote:Harland and Wolff has a workforce of 130. And you don't just recruit a trained and skilled workforce overnight. So where do you get them from?


And they haven't built a ship in 13 years, and nothing of this scale for longer.

It's going to be interesting to see what design the UK consortium come up with. Thats 2 of the 4 with an aft superstructure. And given the Japanese consortium are likely to do the same (based on previous Japanese replenishment vessels) it will be interesting to see if anyone bucks the trend.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Repulse » 10 Sep 2019, 13:25

No mention of what aviation support facilities there are in the BMT/Navantia design - assume same as the Tide class? If so, my view is that it’s missing an opportunity and would like to see the same as RFA Victoria - IF there will be more than 2 and the additional 1/2 could be used to support other operations.
”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

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Sep 2019, 14:11

Repulse wrote:No mention of what aviation support facilities there are in the BMT/Navantia design - assume same as the Tide class? If so, my view is that it’s missing an opportunity and would like to see the same as RFA Victoria - IF there will be more than 2 and the additional 1/2 could be used to support other operations.


Can't see from the graphic provided so far. But it looks like a large crane forard of the helideck, so no hangar...massive retrograde step if that actually is the case. But surely there must be...stores ships need helo's more than oilers?

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jensy » 10 Sep 2019, 16:09

Timmymagic wrote:
Repulse wrote:No mention of what aviation support facilities there are in the BMT/Navantia design - assume same as the Tide class? If so, my view is that it’s missing an opportunity and would like to see the same as RFA Victoria - IF there will be more than 2 and the additional 1/2 could be used to support other operations.


Can't see from the graphic provided so far. But it looks like a large crane forard of the helideck, so no hangar...massive retrograde step if that actually is the case. But surely there must be...stores ships need helo's more than oilers?


It looks like there is a fourth RAS station just ahead of that crane, with a large door below, facing outwards, similar to the other three on the port side.

I also can't see any evidence of the twin funnels found on the rest of the Aegir ships, and most recent concept, which might suggest that ventilation is taking up the space normally used for a hangar, with the RAS station on at least one side.

Image

In comparison to the Naval Design Partnership's concept, (courtesy of Gabriele's site) it looks a fair bit longer, based on the spacing between the RAS station and it looks like the crane has been there for a while. Still pretty basic compared to the original concept with the superstructure forward.

Could the thinking be, that if accompanying a QE Class there's little need for organic air support and it does open up the potential for another class of ship with reduced stores but enhanced aviation support and other goodies for non-CSG roles? (Optimistic I know)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Sep 2019, 18:43

Poiuytrewq wrote:The Navantia design is supposed to be the front runner so it must be substantially larger than a 20k tonne class vessel. It will be interesting to see what BMT have done with the Cantabria design

indeed
RichardIC wrote:Harland and Wolff has a workforce of 130. And you don't just recruit a trained and skilled workforce overnight. So where do you get them from?

Easyjet fly from Madrid to Belfast.

That's what happened in Oz, in the end, after the productivity was trailing by 200%... isn't it wonderful, calculating %s downwards, rather than up?
- not sure, though, that Navantia builds ships in Madrid; I did know a Brit who was a shipbroker in Riyadh :D
Repulse wrote:No mention of what aviation support facilities there are in the BMT/Navantia design - assume same as the Tide class? If so, my view is that it’s missing an opportunity and would like to see the same as RFA Victoria

Jensy wrote:might suggest that ventilation is taking up the space normally used for a hangar
Well, yes, the Tides could have had a double hangar exc. for the fact that the funnels were running up on both sides
Jensy wrote:Could the thinking be, that if accompanying a QE Class there's little need for organic air support
hmmm, that could be it


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests