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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby marktigger » 03 May 2017, 15:53

Clive F wrote:
Info source?


RFA Association Facebook and Navy look out twitter feed. Are saying DE&S are saying it but noting on their page

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby marktigger » 03 May 2017, 15:55

Caribbean wrote:
marktigger wrote:in modern naval warfare they need the ability to defend themselves

One of the major arguments for arming our auxiliaries is that a defended target is 30-40% less likely to be hit by an air-launched ASM, even if its not actively defending itself. This is because the attacking pilots have to assume that it WILL actively defend itself and therefore have to fly a sub-optimum attack.


A good argument and most ASM's can't self identify a target . Added to which ASM's that have been deflected by ECM, Chaff decoys etc still pose a threat.

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Repulse » 07 May 2017, 08:57

The double hull work for RFA Victoria has been repeated in this month's Warship World. Apparently it was said by Robin Bouldy the MARS Tanker team lead.

Could this be the SSSs moving to the right?
”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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Poiuytrewq » 20 Sep 2018, 10:01

RFA Fort Victoria looking fantastic as refit by Cammell Laird nears completion.

(RRS Sir David Attenborough in the background looking good too)
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Sep 2018, 12:43

The design with a few alterations would fit the bill for the SSS rather nicely

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby shark bait » 20 Sep 2018, 13:49

True. I expected a civilian hull would be the donor, but is there any reason why the starting point couldn't be Fort Victoria? If they could fit the Tides power and propulsion in it would make the perfect platform. (big aviation capacity too!)
@LandSharkUK

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Sep 2018, 16:31

Lord Jim wrote:The design with a few alterations would fit the bill for the SSS rather nicely


To be fair the Mars SSS design that's been floating around for years looks very much like a modern fort Victoria just focused on solid stores.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 15:05

I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Scimitar54 » 21 Sep 2018, 16:00

Something to do with the QEC's not being nuclear powered I should think :geek:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 20:01

That doesn't really make sense as the USN has had one stop support vessels for decades providing fuel and stores for both vessels and aircraft, form diesel to avgas, potatoes to paveways. An example would be the Sacremento class combat support ships, which combine the capabilities of a Stores ship, an Oiler, an Ammunition ship and a Cargo ship into one hull, and could support and operate three UH-46D Sea Knights. These vessels have supported both the USNs CVNS and CVs during their service lives.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Aethulwulf » 21 Sep 2018, 20:11

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?
It allows the QECs to replenish the fuel from a Tide on the port side while at the same time replenish the solid stores from a FSS on the starboard side, and thus minimise the total time undertaking RAS.

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Sep 2018, 20:39

Aethulwulf wrote: replenish the fuel from a Tide on the port side while at the same time replenish the solid stores from a FSS on the starboard side


I would imagine that the round-trips required for each type are different, too? Us not having quite as many bases to fall back upon as the USN has
- oilers vs. picking up missiles and other stuff that goes 'bang'

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Sep 2018, 21:03

Mind you a Sacremento class is over 50,000tones fully loaded!

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby shark bait » 24 Sep 2018, 07:53

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?


There's a paper floating around on this subject from BMT. They decided for a big fleet specialist vessels are the most effective option because the platforms are much closer to whats available from the commercial world.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Sep 2018, 08:05

shark bait wrote:big fleet specialist vessels are the most effective option because the platforms are much closer to whats available from the commercial world

... and we will soon be able to see the difference in the unit costs, SSS vs a Tide, as the former are further removed from any civilian base design

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Sep 2018, 13:56

Oh well relearning the skill sets to support a carrier group is another thing to add to the list then. We haven't done so since the 1970s era Ark Royal was tied up. Supporting a carrier doing the level of flight ops the QEs can is totally different from supporting one of the Invincibles.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5922
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby shark bait » 25 Sep 2018, 07:59

The demand will be huge compared to the last decade of RFA activity, I expect they will need more people if the RN ever reach proper big carrier ops. (technical term)
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby abc123 » 25 Sep 2018, 14:16

Lord Jim wrote:Oh well relearning the skill sets to support a carrier group is another thing to add to the list then. We haven't done so since the 1970s era Ark Royal was tied up. Supporting a carrier doing the level of flight ops the QEs can is totally different from supporting one of the Invincibles.


Considering the number of F-35s that QE will carry for first 5-10 years, there will be plenty of time to learn that... :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Rambo
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Rambo » 25 Nov 2018, 14:38

Having a good peruse of Goole maps as you do and came across Fort Victoria (or is it Fort George) at Cammell Laird. I think this was circa 2010 when these images were taken. What suprised me is the Sea Wolf silo intact. I always assumed this was removed years ago. My question is how much work would it have taken to have Sea Wolf operating from this vessel? I guess the silo was put in during the build phase and never removed but i've never noticed it before. Also, i've not located the Sea Wolf directors. I guess she could be upgraded (unlikely) to carry CAMM if required.

edit: looking again i see both Fort Victoria and George at at Cammell laird together. George being in the wet dock looking sorry for itself as she was withdrawn by then. A mistake getting rid of her if you ask me.

Fort Victoria.jpg

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Ron5 » 25 Nov 2018, 16:31

They'll be reusing them on the Type 31's :D

Rambo
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Rambo » 25 Nov 2018, 16:50

An extra silo for T31 may save a couple of million. We’re going to need it!

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1992
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Gabriele » 25 Nov 2018, 19:33

Isn't it covered by a big white radome these days?
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
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Poiuytrewq » 25 Nov 2018, 19:54

Gabriele wrote:Isn't it covered by a big white radome these days?
Yep, SatCom :thumbup:
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby Repulse » 28 Apr 2019, 09:27

Currently Ft Victoria looks to have a OSD of 2023/24, but given recent comments on the value of “Oilers” then surely extending the lifespan of this particularly valuable vessel is a no brainer. RFA Argus is 10 years older and has a similar OSD, so a mid 2030s OSD should be possible.

I’d argue, regardless of the number of SSSs that are built for the CSGs (2 or 3), focusing Ft Victoria as a core of a EoS Littoral Task Group would give an asset that would actually allow a different thinking on the T31e, and actually just be a extension on what it has been up to for a number of years.

It already meets a number of the key requirements, including aviation facilities, RM accommodation, medical facilities and stores. I think with some relatively modest investment it could be a good solution: adding Artisan, activating and upgrading the 32 VLS to CAMM, addition of a couple of LCVPs on davits, and additional space for dry stores and light vehicles.

Combined with this I can then see a good fit with the B2 Rivers, who again with modest modifications could then act as Littoral Escorts to the ship. Each capable of hosting RMs and small boats.

Forward basing Ft Victoria and 3 B2 (or B3) Rivers out of Singapore would give a solid low key presence in the area (with a good self defence capability), supporting allies in low level interventions (like another East Timor or South Pacific).

I’d see the budget for this coming out of the T31 budget, leaving the 2 FLSS plans in place and the 2-3 SSSs. The EoS FLSS operating in the lower threat area of the Indian Ocean and East Africa.

Doing this would the make the T31 programme effectively the upgrade of Ft Victoria, the purchase of another T26 plus 4 more modest Sloops derived from the current B2 Rivers.
”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

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Apr 2019, 21:59

Repulse wrote: Ft Victoria looks to have a OSD of 2023/24, but given recent comments on the value of “Oilers” then surely extending the lifespan
Recent refit, yes
Repulse wrote:focusing Ft Victoria as a core of a EoS Littoral Task Group would give an asset

Would agree once there are two SSSs; what's that EoS, btw?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hovematlot, Jake1992, Max Jones, serge750 and 32 guests