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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Nov 2019, 17:09

SW1 wrote: Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers.


Was it them or the Koreans who built for Oz? Anyway, the proposal was rounded (in cost and detail) yonks ago - though we might need it "stretched" in size?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Nov 2019, 17:41

SW1 wrote:In one sense I can see why the Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers. If the RFA are happy with the tide class and know the design the commonality that basing the stores ship on the same design would surely be of benefit.
In that case, why not just build the BMT design at Cammell Laird with or without input from H&W.

Why is Navantia's involvement even necessary if the preferred option is now that the FSS is built in the UK with a UK design?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 17:53

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:In one sense I can see why the Navantia bid has merit after all isn’t there proposal based on a solid stores variant of the tide class tankers. If the RFA are happy with the tide class and know the design the commonality that basing the stores ship on the same design would surely be of benefit.
In that case, why not just build the BMT design at Cammell Laird with or without input from H&W.

Why is Navantia's involvement even necessary if the preferred option is now that the FSS is built in the UK with a UK design?


Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Nov 2019, 18:58

SW1 wrote:Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.
My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?

I fully understand the BMT/Navantia collaboration if the FSS were to be constructed in Spain. If the FSS are now to be built in the UK due to a change in procurement policy then the need to involve a foreign manufacturer seems weak, especially if it is a UK design.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 19:13

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.
My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?

I fully understand the BMT/Navantia collaboration if the FSS were to be constructed in Spain. If the FSS are now to be built in the UK due to a change in procurement policy then the need to involve a foreign manufacturer seems weak, especially if it is a UK design.


Define built in the UK, possibly parts of the design will be fabricated in the UK and assembled elsewhere or the reverse. Is fitting of UK specific equipment required in the UK like the tide class rather than full build. Also navantia probably brings more experience of building large vessels that other yards do not.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Nov 2019, 20:49

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:Well BMT and Navantia joined together to bid the contract. I guess that’s there choice but I don’t see why it should be an issue. I’ve never understood the obsession in the naval world to have everything designed and built exclusively in the UK, no other section does. Type 31 has imo been a welcome change to that strategy.
My point is, if it's a British design to be built in a British yard(s) why the need for Navantia's involvement?
BMT design is "concept level", not detailed design. The former is relatively cheap so that even a small firm as BMT can do it by themselves.

The latter shall include all parts lists, and each and every steps with process documented out. An, this is the expensive part = main part.

I guess Navantia is doing the latter part. Can CL do it or not?

Roders96
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Roders96 » 21 Nov 2019, 20:55

Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

BMT + HW have the capability on paper but Espanola brings much needed depth.

Same reason BAE partnered with LM for CSC bid. They didn't have the financial heft to layout in advance the required capital investment alongside Sea5000 + UKT26.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 21 Nov 2019, 21:12

Roders96 wrote:Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.


H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 21 Nov 2019, 22:47

SW1 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.
Yes. But, H&W was on sale for 1 year or so, and couldn't find buyer = surely not a brilliant branch of the business (=not high profit). The buyer has come only recently, which means not zero profit.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Roders96 » 22 Nov 2019, 09:20

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Roders96 wrote:Also about cashflow too. HW went bust because it couldn't manage it effectively.

H&W did not go bust. The parent company that owned H&W went bust and sold H&W as a going concern.
Yes. But, H&W was on sale for 1 year or so, and couldn't find buyer = surely not a brilliant branch of the business (=not high profit). The buyer has come only recently, which means not zero profit.


@ SW1 apologies for simplifyng

@ DoT Ty for explaining

'noun
noun: bust; plural noun: busts
1.
a period of economic difficulty or depression.'

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 23 Nov 2019, 11:18


dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby dmereifield » 23 Nov 2019, 13:56

Thanks Ron. Wow, a whole 33% of the money going into UK Plc...

jonas
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby jonas » 14 Jan 2020, 08:33

As SDSR looms :-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/require ... -reviewed/

Of course this has nothing to do with the original decision " that no consensus could be reached" ! Event to be held 25th-27th Feb 2020.

https://www.defenceiq.com/events-suppor ... gKvnvD_BwE :shh:

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Repulse » 14 Jan 2020, 13:12

Given the impact of recent statements on planning assumptions (I.e. not relying on the US) and the hype around the SDSR20, cannot see any decisions happening till Q4 this year.
”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

inch
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby inch » 14 Jan 2020, 18:00

My take on it and I really hope I'm wrong is maybe all the talking of reassessing the top to toe needs of the the UK is that they going to cut a carrier ,then say they don't need to build the 3 fleet support ships saving to fill black hole ,and other things they promised especially with Cummings not even liking the carriers ,waist of time in his view ,just wants whiz kids on lap tops ,and maybe a Ben Wallace who is an army man happy to see navy cut for promised few goodys for the army ,

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 14 Jan 2020, 18:33

inch wrote:My take on it and I really hope I'm wrong is maybe all the talking of reassessing the top to toe needs of the the UK is that they going to cut a carrier ,then say they don't need to build the 3 fleet support ships saving to fill black hole ,and other things they promised especially with Cummings not even liking the carriers ,waist of time in his view ,just wants whiz kids on lap tops ,and maybe a Ben Wallace who is an army man happy to see navy cut for promised few goodys for the army ,


On the other hand, if the UK wants to stay buddies with the US, we value your carriers pretty high. Your army not so much. Carriers are freakin' useless without FSSS.

inch
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby inch » 14 Jan 2020, 19:41

Well ron5 I really hope you is right and I'm badly wrong ,I'd be just fine with that outcome tbh

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jensy » 15 Jan 2020, 16:43

inch wrote:My take on it and I really hope I'm wrong is maybe all the talking of reassessing the top to toe needs of the the UK is that they going to cut a carrier ,then say they don't need to build the 3 fleet support ships saving to fill black hole ,and other things they promised especially with Cummings not even liking the carriers ,waist of time in his view ,just wants whiz kids on lap tops ,and maybe a Ben Wallace who is an army man happy to see navy cut for promised few goodys for the army ,


If I were Ben Wallace I'd be keeping my head down and my trap shut at the moment.

His previous boasts of having been to Iran more than any other Parliamentarian, the last trip even taken with Jeremy Corbyn, seem somewhat out of vogue with the current environment. Looks like he's gone a bit native in Persia and I'm not entirely sure he should ever have gotten the role in the first place.

Also seems to want to piss off/on the Yanks a fair bit just when defence diplomacy would have been useful.

As for Cummings's carrier-phobia, he seems easily distracted and will hopefully find a new hobby horse.

It would clearly be very challenging, however getting one of the QEC deployed this year with a few F-35 would do a lot to quieten down these critics. I see Fort Victoria is back at sea and there should be a few more T-23s available, fresh from refit, this year.

Not suggesting sending them into the Gulf, but even a show of force in the Eastern-Med could do a lot to prove their worth. Hopefully with less smoke than the Kuznetsov.

Iran's Western border is the Lebanese coastline after all and Cyprus-based Typhoons could make up for the diminutive air-group, whilst demonstrating to allies and foes that we intend to make use of these platforms.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 17:08

Yep "As for Cummings's carrier-phobia, he seems easily distracted and will hopefully find a new hobby horse."
... they are too low tech for him

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 17:14

The first time I saw the phrase "mad as a box of frogs" was when it was applied to him. After reading his comments about any teenager with a toy radio controlled aircraft being able to sink the QE, I instantly understood what it meant.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2020, 17:16

Are either of the Carriers heading west this year to carry out more trials and exercises to get us and the US in sync for next years big tour? Saying that, having the USNC send a few planes and personnel over and have QE sail to the Med stopping in Gibraltar would be a good exercise both for PR and training. We could even have the Spanish and Italians pop over with their Harriers, again good training possibilities and great PR.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 208
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jensy » 15 Jan 2020, 21:53

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yep "As for Cummings's carrier-phobia, he seems easily distracted and will hopefully find a new hobby horse."
... they are too low tech for him


I think his little gilets are a cry for a more agrarian lifestyle... Probably dreams of a simpler life in the Bavarian hills from his very own mountaintop lair.

Lord Jim wrote:Are either of the Carriers heading west this year to carry out more trials and exercises to get us and the US in sync for next years big tour? Saying that, having the USNC send a few planes and personnel over and have QE sail to the Med stopping in Gibraltar would be a good exercise both for PR and training.


I believe neither are expected to go far from home this year. Though there was a New Year's tweet from QNLZ about going "somewhere warm" later in the year. This has led to some wild speculation about a trip to the Caribbean or Gibraltar.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Jake1992 » 18 Mar 2020, 21:36

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/plans-f ... r-of-mrss/

If this becomes true then it looks like the carriers will never be able to operate at full force.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 750
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Scimitar54 » 19 Mar 2020, 01:26

Would also probably mean the end of “Heavy Jackstay Transfer” RAS and Mechanised WHS in the RFA as well. Only one step from sending QEC to sea with no aircraft and no escorts. The “empty vessels” that came up with this idea should be given a proper “beasting”. Yes we need more platforms .... but, they NEED to be more capable and not less so. The next step might be; “As we can’t re-supply the QEC, we might as well not have them.” It is not even April the First yet! :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Caribbean » 19 Mar 2020, 08:12

Scimitar54 wrote:Would also probably mean the end of “Heavy Jackstay Transfer” RAS and Mechanised WHS in the RFA as well. Only one step from sending QEC to sea with no aircraft and no escorts.

Panic not

“Ellida will require some tweaks but would appear to reflect the requirements of littoral strike and needs of Carrier Strike”

Seems to me that they are thinking about precisely that. Presumably one of the "tweaks" would be the "Heavy" RAS equipment, plus improving the ability to move stores between decks when operating if SSS mode, rather than LSS mode. Compliant ammunition stores would also seem neccessary.

Seems worth a look at least. 1000 lane metres would translate to around 80 TEUs for containerised stores. A dock for two LCU/ Caiman 90, Role 2 Medical facility plus Merlin hangar (or remove the Role 2 and enlarge the hangar, also possible to keep the Role 2 at the expense of some of the EMF accommodation), plus ferry capability for a further three medium helicopters. Add in the ability to operate light boats, carry a 300-person EMF, 2 x Phalanx plus 2 x 40mm and it would seem to fit quite well into the space between the SSS and LSS.

In fact, add in 12+ CAMM and maybe we should be building these instead of T31 :twisted:

Also makes sense of the rumours a couple of weeks ago about the LSS costing £400m each, when the original concept would have been much cheaper.

Downside: Looks like they are talking about fully mothballing/ scrapping Bulwark and Albion.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 19 guests

 

 

cron