UK Defence Forum

Builder: Harland & Wolff, Belfast, United Kingdom
Laid down: 15 September 1988
Launched: 4 May 1990
Commissioned: 24 June 1994
Identification: Pennant number: A387
Length: 204M
Beam: 30.5M
Draught: 9.8M
Displacement: 34,000 Tonnes

Propulsion: 2 × Crossley-Pielstick V16 medium speed diesels, 2 shafts, 25,083 bhp (18,704 kW)

Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)
Complement: 95 RFA
15 RN
24 RNSTS
154 RN Air Squadron personnel
Armament: 2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × GAM-BO1 20 mm guns
(Was actually fitted with sea wolf VLS system and Radars Pre Naming)
Aviation facilities: Hangar for 3 × Merlin helicopters
2 spot flight deck

Ships' orchestral manoeuvres in the dark

ROYAL Naval vessels orchestrated manoeuvres in the dark during an unusual transfer at sea.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Fort Victoria met up with frigate HMS Richmond in the Gulf for a Replenishment at Sea (RAS) – but the ships chose to do it at night rather than during daylight hours.
Even in daylight RAS serials are challenging because of the close proximity of the ships during the refuelling and stores transfer.
Fort Victoria’s Navigating Officer, Second Officer Mark Bongartz, said: Although we are experts at replenishment at sea, undertaking the serial in darkness adds a new dimension to it. We have to be extra careful with the safety and the seamanship at night.”

As well as providing essential supplies to the Portsmouth-based Type 23, the RAS provided a great learning opportunity for RFA apprentice seafarers gaining experience with the ship’s Deck Department.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/13315

such flexible ships we should have kept fort George hopefully the replacements will be as good

marktigger wrote:such flexible ships we should have kept fort George hopefully the replacements will be as good

And hopefully they'll be built soon

yes but are we looking at solid stores or a new AOR or 2 of both

marktigger wrote:yes but are we looking at solid stores or a new AOR or 2 of both

I don't think we're after a new AOR, tide's and waves will fulfill that,where have you found that out?. We need something for the heavy replenishment at sea system required for the carrier's now.

Is RFA Fort Victoria "safe" following the SDSR?

SKB wrote:Is RFA Fort Victoria "safe" following the SDSR?

For the time being yes, but wont survive after the new solid support ships come through.
Document doesn't explicitly mention it, however the fleet review only states 3 solid support ships by 2025

Does anyone know what material condition RFA Fort Victoria is in?

If she's not in too bad shape, and once the new Solid Support Ships are in service, could she be kept on and be converted into a HADR support vessel for work in the Caribbean during hurricane season for example (freeing up a frigate or Bay LSD); or an MCM support vessel to replace a Bay in the Persian Gulf (she could even hypothetically be fitted with Sea Ceptor); or to take over the PCRS role from RFA Argus - while she has good aviation facilities, I don't think she'd be able to take over the aviation training role. Maybe some improvements to reduce crew requirement?

Fort Victoria is a relatively new ship by RFA standards, and could still have many more years of useful service left.

Might be less cost-prohibitive than a new-build Argus replacement or buying and converting another merchant ship, and might give some much-needed work to British shipyards.

Ideal situation would be to hold onto her post-SSS, as many have said she's relatively new and in pretty good shape. Quite a few people agree that 4 stores ships are probably what's required to get the most out of the carriers and sustain a decent global footprint. What does she cost to run?

she's just been refitted but breaks international convention for tankers being single skinned

Engaging Strategy wrote:What does she cost to run?

Fort Victoria £14.3 million per year. For comparison a more modern auxiliary, the wave class, cost £9.1 million per year

Argus costs £8 million per year so in that respect she is a poor replacement.

Although a 4th stores ship would be useful, it shouldn't come from Victoria. No commonality, large crew, a large proportion is for oil which cant be used and in the long run I suspect it would be cheaper to build an extra solid support ship.

marktigger wrote:she's just been refitted but breaks international convention for tankers being single skinned

How good is she as just a simple stores ship, if you discontinued the use of her fuel tanks? Also would it be possible to decontaminate the tanks and use them for other liquid stores (like fresh water) that could be useful for HA/DR?

ES, that's more along the lines I was thinking but I don't think retaining her as a single-class stores ship would be a good idea.

In my hypothetical scenario, she wouldn't be used as a tanker in any way so shouldn't break international conventions.

Thanks for the sums Shark Bait, you're right, it doesn't seem economical. Fort Victoria is a larger ship and also has a larger crew. Perhaps if the fuel and stores replenishment aspects are removed, it would result in fewer manning costs, but probably not as much to offset the large difference between the running costs of Fort Victoria and Argus - the naval service needs all the savings it can get at the end of the day.

It sure does.

She will be 35 years old by the time she is replaced, that is a good service, its not worth the alterations for a few extra years.

The other forts will be more like 45 years old by the time the solid support ship comes through, and could well be the last remaining veterans of the Falklands in service.

I suspect Argus and Dilligence will be some of the last Falklands veterans in the fleet!

perhaps, I have their out of service dates as 2020 and 2024 for Dilligence and Argus respectively.

solid support ship will be coming into service in the "Mid twenty's" so it will be a close call between Argus and Fort Austin for the title.

my money would be on Dilligence

2020 OSD, but I suppose another life extension is not out of the question for her, tight budgets and all.

shark bait wrote:2020 OSD, but I suppose another life extension is not out of the question for her, tight budgets and all.

the major issue with fort victoria is she is a single skin tanker so therefore doesn't now comply with international maritime law. Putting an outer skin on her is feasible but very expensive (probably as expensive as a new build from S Korea)

Darn, shame that wasn't a Type 23 so we could count silos

Nice to see her original Seawolf Silos still intact. Shame they never actually went ahead and fitted the trackers and missiles themselves

trackers were fitted for naming of Fort victoria

Ron5 wrote:Darn, shame that wasn't a Type 23 so we could count silos

there is pictures of type 23's seawolf silos and fort victoria's seawolf silos