RFA Fort Victoria

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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”?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Repulse »

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: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

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: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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 :)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

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: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

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: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

At last, back to sea...

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Repulse »

That’s a one big flight deck.

”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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by SKB »

Image
(@RFATideforce) 3rd October 2020
You spend ages loading cargo fuel, then RFA Fort Victoria comes along and pinches it.
Isn't that large white radar dome the same kind thats now on (some) T23 hangar roofs?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Repulse »

It’s either that or the CAMM launcher mushroom caps have got larger...
”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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote:Image
(@RFATideforce) 3rd October 2020
You spend ages loading cargo fuel, then RFA Fort Victoria comes along and pinches it.
Isn't that large white radar dome the same kind thats now on (some) T23 hangar roofs?
SKB wrote:Isn't that large white radar dome the same kind thats now on (some) T23 hangar roofs?
On the Type 23's it's supposed to be a communications upgrade for their world trip so would make sense if it was the same but all domes look the same to me. Some bigger, some smaller, some white, some grey, but all round and hide their occupants.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by BlueD954 »

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -07/hl8877

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary currently has one Fleet Solid Support ship capable of supporting a Carrier Strike Group; RFA FORT VICTORIA.

***

The Baroness must be so proud.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

Well at least we still kept one!

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Jensy »

Confirms the speculation from the QEC thread and elsewhere.

3x Merlin HC.4 embarked on RFA Fort Victoria for Op Fortis. From Navy Lookout:



With the FSS contract being drafted (in crayon or otherwise) at this moment, I hope that the experiences of Fort Victoria's crew will influence both the FSS and possibly elements of MRSS designs going forward.

Image

The scale of her flight deck (as seen above) and triple hangar in comparison to the rather spartan Tide Class seems to be something that should be replicated in FSS.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote:Confirms the speculation from the QEC thread and elsewhere:



With the FSS contract being drafted (in crayon or otherwise) at this moment, I hope that the experiences of Fort Victoria's crew will influence both the FSS and possibly elements of MRSS designs going forward.
Well it’s had plenty of experience before to have provided influence it embarked 5 merlins for operation telic.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

Where's the third, approaching Merlin going to land? Or does the deck have 3 landing spots?

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:Where's the third, approaching Merlin going to land? Or does the deck have 3 landing spots?
Only two, the other side is utilised for storage of equipment, including additional aircraft, as alluded to in Sw1's post above. Also if you notice the hangars are offset to port, to provide space and clearance for the crane:

Image

Daresay you could change the layout and get landing spots for three smaller medium helicopters.

Post Reply