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.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1211
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SW1 » 22 Mar 2020, 13:29

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I thought the fort1 are laid up/scrapped up as well?. Fort Victoria is the only one left


I think we are talking at cross purposes here my point is that in 2011 we should let one or both of the Fort 1's go as at that time they were 30+ years old and kept Fort George that in 2011 was only 18 years into service we could have even rotated the two Fort 11's as we have done with Albion's and Waves we may have been in a better place now


Yeah I agree it perhaps would of been better to do that, but the two older fort vessels were essentially placed in “refit” in 2013/14 and have never appeared since so arguably keeping the other fort would have lasted little beyond a year and half. They all had issues in not being double hulled and the need to find crew for the tide tankers. I personally don’t think placing ships in mothballs for 6 years at a time is a particularly good idea.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1610
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Mar 2020, 10:31

So with the talk of a multi role ship now being pushed about maybe a modified Den Helder class could work at a cost of 375 million euros

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 23 Mar 2020, 11:25

No need to put fuel stores in there, takes up too much room, and storing ammunition next to fuel is a bit of an arse.
@LandSharkUK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Mar 2020, 15:55

If we want to be able to operate out Carriers as we intend to we need the FSS period. Any Multirole ship or Littoral Strike Ship programmes need to be firmly on the "Nice to have", list for the foreseeable future.

With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation. We should retire a number of T-23 (GP) sooner than later, and maybe pass the B1 River to the Coastguard agency as long range cutters.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 27 Mar 2020, 08:34

Its unlikely the Navy will gets its FSS within foreseeable future because there's no where to build it.

Based on industrial capacity, the sensible thing is build these after the T31 build has complete, which pushes the date out towards 2030, which is a long time to wait. If the ships are still needed on the original timeline they'll have to buy a foreign design and have it build abroad.
@LandSharkUK

SD67
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SD67 » 27 Mar 2020, 10:58

They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11759
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Mar 2020, 12:23

Lord Jim wrote:With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation.


The first para, above, would be a good input onto the SDSR thread: what not to delay/ freeze, until the opportune time for an in-depth integrated review.

AS FOR the Albions, they learned from the previous 'swap' and the allocated ship's company is now forty, instead of 11, to keep all systems running - while the sip is not sailing.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 27 Mar 2020, 15:10

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.


I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2421
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 27 Mar 2020, 16:28

Lord Jim wrote:If we want to be able to operate out Carriers as we intend to we need the FSS period. Any Multirole ship or Littoral Strike Ship programmes need to be firmly on the "Nice to have", list for the foreseeable future.

With GDP falling and a hole already in the budget we need to pair down what programmes we intend to seriously pursue, which can go either on hold or slow time and which we can remove from the EP. The RN needs CROWSNEST, the next five T-26 and the T-45 re-engine programmes to be kept on track at the very least in addition to the purchase of at least one FSS.

I do not know when the Albions are due to swap status but that should be delayed until things improve as bringing the one out of reserve is not a cheap operation. We should retire a number of T-23 (GP) sooner than later, and maybe pass the B1 River to the Coastguard agency as long range cutters.


About next 5 T26, they are so far in the future that you can order next 15 T26 as well. Until some meaningful work starts about them, this crisis will be as forgotten as Zika virus or 2008 recession. On the other hand, maybe T31 will be postponed? Just one FSS? It makes no sense.
But yes, Crowsnest, T45 re-engining are the priority for the RN. And not selling the PoW. :yawn:
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…

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 27 Mar 2020, 18:21

abc123 wrote:next 15 T26


Good thinking.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Scimitar54 » 27 Mar 2020, 19:20

18 in total sounds about right! :mrgreen:

SD67
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby SD67 » 27 Mar 2020, 20:49

Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.


I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.


Sorry - am I missing something? I was under the impression that both were on time on budget. Sure you're not confusing them with the Fergusons Ferry Fiasco?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5885
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby shark bait » 27 Mar 2020, 21:16

SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds


They could, but I feel like that's setting yourself up to fail. The MOD could create enough demand for 2 shipyards, but not three, so it's paying to start up production, then paying again to shut it down.

Plus, remember CL didn't have the credentials to run the T31 bid on their own.
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby Ron5 » 27 Mar 2020, 22:34

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:They could probably be built at Cammell Lairds in Merseyside quite easily, the problem is money - the funding gap in the equipment plan plus C19 impact.


I think I read CL would need a modest investment to accommodate the longer length of the FSS. The only issue might be their less than stellar record building McBoaty and refitting RFAs.


Sorry - am I missing something? I was under the impression that both were on time on budget. Sure you're not confusing them with the Fergusons Ferry Fiasco?


Check again.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2421
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Postby abc123 » 28 Mar 2020, 07:33

Scimitar54 wrote:18 in total sounds about right! :mrgreen:


Indeed. At least 15.
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…


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charlielloyd, Kernit and 14 guests