UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

RFA Fort Victoria

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 04 May 2019, 21:22

Lord Jim wrote:Having Fort Victoria plus two new FSS will be enough to support a single Carrier Group, and that is all we are going to have at any one time.
Yes. One of the 3 SSS will be in long maintenance or low readiness, and a single CVTF needs two SSS; one with CVTF and another going back to port for re-supply.

So three is not only enough, but also minimum required.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 04 May 2019, 21:29

Tempest414 wrote:The idea that the FLSS will be crewed by a core crew of 35 is complete horse shit these ships will need a crew of 80+ end of
What is bad with having a special force support ship? If it is a ship with as many crew as a.Bay, it will kill a Bay or Wave, or even Ft Victoria.

I am now thinking FLSS as Argus replacement and if it is 35 core crews, two of them fits in Argus’s “crew resource”?

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Tempest414 » 04 May 2019, 22:14

A core crew of 35 for the ships as shown is a complete Dream this number will just about be able to move it from port to port . A ship as simple as a Point class has a crew of 22 and we are now told a ship with all the kit of FLSS can be crewed by a extra 13 people wake up it will not happen

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2192
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Repulse » 04 May 2019, 23:02

Lord Jim wrote:this whole idea of "East of Suez" need to be seriously reconsidered until the resources are in place to be able to have forces in place that can make a difference rather than just wave the flag and look good in photos.


You’ve outlined perfectly the question - do we want forces that are forward based that can make a difference or do we want a presence (for low level flag waiving, training, HADR etc events) with an occasional visit from the CSG that could itself make a difference. Anyone dreaming of the former either lives in the wrong country or wrong century.
”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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Caribbean » 04 May 2019, 23:14

Tempest414 wrote:A core crew of 35 for the ships as shown is a complete Dream this number will just about be able to move it from port to port . A ship as simple as a Point class has a crew of 22 and we are now told a ship with all the kit of FLSS can be crewed by a extra 13 people wake up it will not happen


Well - let's look at it from a slightly different perspective - what exactly, on (say) a Point class converted to an FLSS is going to require more crew. A flight deck is just a deck. An empty hangar has a couple of doors that might need maintenance, as will the davits for offloading boats and an additional accommodation block might, again, need some extra maintenance staff. Add in additional catering staff and that's about it. Thirteen extra bodies should easily cover the tasks. Everyone else comes from elsewhere, SF, RM, AAC etc etc. These are not going to be warships, with loads of complex weapons systems and sensors, or amphibs with docks. Think overgrown SD Victoria (which can deploy four RhIBs and two SF boats, as well as divers and SDVs, and operates with 16 crew and 72 "Special personnel").
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 May 2019, 03:06

Crews: (Sorry from wiki). We can see, core crew, and crews associated with additional capabilities. For example, if Fort Victoria is operating 6 Merlins, she needs 154 more crew coming from FAA. If the FLSS needs 6 Merlin HC4, similar number air crew will be sent from JHC (or FAA), to my understanding.

(*: personal comment)

Fort Victoria SSS:
95 RFA
15 RN
24 RNSTS
154 RN Air Squadron personnel (*for 6 Merlin?)

Fort Rosalie-class SSS:
127 RFA
45 RN
36 STO(N) civilians

Bay class LSD:
70 (RFA, core only) + aviation or RMs
(158 (RAN))

Tide class tanker:
63
plus 46 non-crew embarked persons (Royal Marines, flight crew, trainees)

Wave class tanker:
80 Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel
22 for Royal Navy personnel for helicopter and weapons systems operations

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Tempest414 » 05 May 2019, 08:46

Caribbean wrote:Well - let's look at it from a slightly different perspective - what exactly, on (say) a Point class converted to an FLSS is going to require more crew. A flight deck is just a deck. An empty hangar has a couple of doors that might need maintenance, as will the davits for offloading boats and an additional accommodation block might, again, need some extra maintenance staff. Add in additional catering staff and that's about it. Thirteen extra bodies should easily cover the tasks. Everyone else comes from elsewhere, SF, RM, AAC etc etc. These are not going to be warships, with loads of complex weapons systems and sensors, or amphibs with docks. Think overgrown SD Victoria (which can deploy four RhIBs and two SF boats, as well as divers and SDVs, and operates with 16 crew and 72 "Special personnel").


By his way of thinking the Bays can be core crewed by say 40 as all the same applies and the well dock is just a few hydraulic's and pumps that need maintaining


Also when the FAA / JHC embark they do so with aircrew and Maintenance staff not flight deck teams a fire fighters. a flight deck is not just another deck as another deck dose not need refuelling points fuel stores davits are the same they will have fuelling points all of this will need extra crew due to the fact of damage control

and as for just adding some catering staff a type 23 /45 has galley team of 10 to 14 so as these ships will have from between 120 to 300 people embarked at any time the same will apply

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 May 2019, 08:59

Caribbean wrote:additional catering staff and that's about it. Thirteen extra bodies

Tempest414 wrote:a type 23 /45 has galley team of 10 to 14

Tempest414 wrote:between 120 to 300 people embarked at any time

I knew something had been forgotten: with 45 days + 45 RAS'sed days on top... that's a lot of laundry :)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 May 2019, 13:27

Tempest414 wrote:By his way of thinking the Bays can be core crewed by say 40 as all the same applies and the well dock is just a few hydraulic's and pumps that need maintaining
I do not think so. One of the cargo ship's "figure of merit" is low crew number. So, the ship systems are focussed on less man-power from the beginning. On the other hand, Bay class is an LSD, the Enforcer design, which is basically designed to have a crew of 100-150. In other words, basic hull design differs from Bay class LSD.
Also when the FAA / JHC embark they do so with aircrew and Maintenance staff not flight deck teams a fire fighters. a flight deck is not just another deck as another deck dose not need refuelling points fuel stores davits are the same they will have fuelling points all of this will need extra crew due to the fact of damage control
and as for just adding some catering staff a type 23 /45 has galley team of 10 to 14 so as these ships will have from between 120 to 300 people embarked at any time the same will apply
Why not those "firefighting crew" also comes from "other than the ship core crew"? Maintenance of those "firefighting tools" will be needed by the core crew, but the firefighting and catering are "part time jobs", only needed when additional capabilities are carried on the ship.

Independently, FLSS do not need to be ~100 crew ship (better damage control and better maintenance = can handle more man-power intensive tools). UK has 3 Bay class, so buying one or two cheap PSV-based HADR ships to relieve the Bay at APT-N will be the answer in that case. "Transformation cost" does not include any maintenance cost nor operation cost (including crew).

This is partly the reason I guess 2 FLSS are (at least partly) the "yet non-existing" replacement for RFA Argus. In this case, the operation cost and crew (or crew-cost) will be succeeded and affordable.

If the 2 FLSS need larger crew, it will immediately kill a Bay or a Wave. A simple math.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Tempest414 » 05 May 2019, 13:55

donald_of_tokyo wrote:but the firefighting and catering are "part time jobs", only needed when additional capabilities are carried on the ship.


What really so now firefighting at sea is a part time job someone has to pay for these people to be vetted and trained and then then have them sat about in case the MOD want them . and once you start adding flight decks and all the kit required for Helicopter ops even part time these ships are no longer ferries. for me if FLSS dose not stack up then it is not the Bay's and Waves that should go it is the FLSS

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Caribbean » 05 May 2019, 16:04

Tempest414 wrote:By his way of thinking the Bays can be core crewed by say 40 as all the same applies and the well dock is just a few hydraulic's and pumps that need maintaining

Yes, they probably could. If a decision was made to not operate the Bays as amphibs, then you could probably reduce the core crew to 40. A Bay counts the personnel that operate and maintain the dock as part of it's core crew, because the dock is, frankly, its reason for existing. It needs a lot of people to handle and service it. The FLSS doesn't have one.
Tempest414 wrote: a type 23 /45 has galley team of 10 to 14

So why do all the catering staff have to be part of the core crew? The vessel needs to be equipped with a suitably sized galley and equipment to feed up to 400, but will only need to cart the personnel around when there is an EMF aboard.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:that's a lot of laundry

Yup -I forgot the laundry. But same comment as for the catering staff - the "surge" numbers could come from the EMF.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Tempest414 » 05 May 2019, 17:10

well I will finish with my money is on if these this get the go ahead and are RFA operated they will 60+ crew and they are contract run they will have 35 crew plus 30 RN giving a crew of 60+

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 May 2019, 00:36

If it is 60+, I have no problem because it fits within FRA Argus’s crew size ; 80 RFA + 50 RN.

My point is, to do it, the core crew size needs to be ~40, if those ship will be x1.5 manned for ~300 days per year “at sea”. If the 300 day requirement be reduced to “ready”, not “at sea”, then 60+ is 60+.

Let’s see how it goes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2019, 08:39

Tempest414 wrote:contract run they will have 35 crew plus 30 RN giving a crew of 60+

And this will be no different from the Points when they are sent to nastier parts of the world. Though the RM contingent could be anything between a section and a platoon (as this is never committed to print... or at least I haven't seen it).
- the above is not trying to pre-guess whether FLSS conversions will start by taking Points or buying similar (smaller?) from trade

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 12 Jan 2020, 14:34

At last, back to sea...


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abc123, bobminder, gandalf, Jensy, Jimpa and 15 guests