Yep, I accepted a job in Cornwall when I was young and single and accommodation was being thrown in with the package.
Future Solid Support Ship
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
-
- Member
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Yes and furthermore people in Cornwall where I currently live (and to a slightly lesser extent Devon where I used to live) have a traditional affinity for the sea which might make the opportunity be viewed as more attractive than in some other parts of the country.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
shark bait wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 15:21 The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?
Seems to indicate not HRAS unfortunately.
- These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 2):
- Timmymagic • donald_of_tokyo
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
RichardIC wrote: ↑04 Feb 2023, 13:52shark bait wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 15:21 The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?
Seems to indicate not HRAS unfortunately.
Yes, bit of a difference in working loads. between 2.5T and 5T
I didn't realise a complete F35 engine was so heavy
Under a £25M contract, Rolls Royce has already developed and built a prototype Heavy Replenishment at Sea rig (HRAS) that will equip the FSS. A test rig was installed and successfully trialled at training establishment HMS Raleigh between 2013-14 and has been left in place as a training aid. Capable of transferring 25 loads per hour weighing up to 5 tonnes, this system promises to be highly efficient, able to supply the carrier at sea quickly. This reduces the window of vulnerability when ships have restricted manoeuvrability as they steam in parallel for RAS. Most importantly HRAS is also capable of transferring a complete Pratt & Witney F135 engine that propels the F-35. The ability to change aircraft engines at sea is an important consideration for extended operations and there is limited space to store such large items on the carrier.
https://www.navylookout.com/fleet-solid ... ning%20aid.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Have they bought any spare f35 engines I’d be amazed if they have any more than about 1 or 2 as spares?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Well I guess’s that must be the modus operandi of the RAF then, it certainly is not that of the FAA.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
And where does heavy lift UAVs enter the equation?dmereifield wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
The payload is up to 700kg now and will keep increasing going forward.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I read somewhere that it was thought that there was sufficient space to store heavy supplies including engines on the carrier.
Having said that a Chinook can carry up to 10 tonnes of supplies, so whilst HAS would have meant overall supply transfer times would have been shorter, I can’t see a significant gap.
Having said that a Chinook can carry up to 10 tonnes of supplies, so whilst HAS would have meant overall supply transfer times would have been shorter, I can’t see a significant gap.
”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
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.dmereifield wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Are they calling it Heavy RAS as it can carry heavier weights than before but not necessarily the originally specified "Heavy RAS" weights?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
OK, fair enough, a nice to have but not essential. The RN have decided the investment was not worth itBongodog wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 13:29Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.dmereifield wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
- These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Not sure what the RAS weight limit is for Fort Victoria, but would guess its rather less than 2.5 tonnes from looking at RAS's on videos, so it will be a significant improvement, I recall seeing somewhere that the only reason for going to 5 tonnes was for the capability of lifting an F35 engine, it was probably felt that it wasn't worth the extra money for a rarely used capabilitydmereifield wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 16:15OK, fair enough, a nice to have but not essential. The RN have decided the investment was not worth itBongodog wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 13:29Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.dmereifield wrote: ↑05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Excellent read.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... ip-design/
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-th ... ip-design/
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
- Phil Sayers • wargame_insomniac • donald_of_tokyo • jedibeeftrix
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
'No portholes because they cost too much' says so much about the shit show of an MOD we have!
- These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
- Jensy
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
As a blank wall will be in place surely its the classic RN "Fitted for but not with"shark bait wrote: ↑01 Mar 2023, 10:42 'No portholes because they cost too much' says so much about the shit show of an MOD we have!
- These users liked the author Bongodog for the post:
- shark bait
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-cur ... y-vessels/
Total of 8 vessels available, each with typically 120-140 RFA crew.
A small number of core-crew will be also onboard the MROSS(1) and MHC-OSV.
Then, what if 3 FSSS comes in? I guess, our "hope" is,
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – disbanded
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – disbanded
- RFA FSSS – 1 not available, 2 available, 3 total
Note that I was forced to disband RFA Argus here, to provide crew for the 2nd FSSS. 3rd FSSS cannot be manned, and shall be "rotated" in extended readiness/long-maintenance.
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – 2 not available, 0 available, 2 total
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – 0 not available, 1 available, 1 total
- RFA Fort Class Multi-Purpose Auxiliary – 0 not available, 1 available, 1 total
Total of 8 vessels available, each with typically 120-140 RFA crew.
A small number of core-crew will be also onboard the MROSS(1) and MHC-OSV.
Then, what if 3 FSSS comes in? I guess, our "hope" is,
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – disbanded
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – disbanded
- RFA FSSS – 1 not available, 2 available, 3 total
Note that I was forced to disband RFA Argus here, to provide crew for the 2nd FSSS. 3rd FSSS cannot be manned, and shall be "rotated" in extended readiness/long-maintenance.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
What about the 3 LSVs and 6 MRSS?donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 14:36 Total of 8 vessels available, each with typically 120-140 RFA crew.
A small number of core-crew will be also onboard the MROSS(1) and MHC-OSV.
Then, what if 3 FSSS comes in? I guess, our "hope" is,
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – disbanded
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – disbanded
- RFA FSSS – 1 not available, 2 available, 3 total
Note that I was forced to disband RFA Argus here, to provide crew for the 2nd FSSS. 3rd FSSS cannot be manned, and shall be "rotated" in extended readiness/long-maintenance.
The current headcount simply isn’t sustainable with RN transferring all of the MCM and Amphibious vessels to the RFA within the next decade.
RN and RFA need to make the most of what is in the water now.
Asking for more funding to build more classes of vessels isn’t likely to looked upon favourably with 50% of current vessels routinely tied up.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Good point. I guess
- 3 LSVs are RN-manned. (because it will be sent to frontline)
- 6 MRSS? Don't worry !! It is "up to 6" MRSS.
Actually, I think 2 MRSS will be replacing 1+1 LPDs, and 3 MRSS will be replacing 3 Bays. 5 vessels out of "up to 6" is not bad, I think.
Exactly. Similarly, for RN escort numbers, surely the "available escort numbers" will improve, significantly, by just introducing 5 T31 and 8 T26. No doubt. We will see more escorts steaming around the world, even without T32. No problem.
The current headcount simply isn’t sustainable with RN transferring all of the MCM and Amphibious vessels to the RFA within the next decade.
RN and RFA need to make the most of what is in the water now.
Asking for more funding to build more classes of vessels isn’t likely to looked upon favourably with 50% of current vessels routinely tied up.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.
Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.
Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.
Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The result of little interest in support and enabling assets over many decades when the rent comes due!Jensy wrote: ↑28 Jun 2023, 11:39 A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.
Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.
Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Indeed. Not sexy enough for Westminster, or even Whitehall for that matter.
Going to be interesting trying to regularly deploy a carrier further afield than the Med or GIUK Gap for the next eight years.
Going to be interesting trying to regularly deploy a carrier further afield than the Med or GIUK Gap for the next eight years.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
In service date and deliver to RN date differs.Jensy wrote: ↑28 Jun 2023, 11:39 A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.
Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.
Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
I read that the 1st FSSS will be delivered to RN on 2029, with acceptance and first of class trial needing 2 years, so 2031?
2nd FSSS delivery on early 2030 and 3rd one on late 2030.
On the crew. there will be no crew for, at least, the 3rd hull, without putting some Tides in extended readiness. Here I assume the 2nd hull’s crew comes from disbanding Argus.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
If the RFA headcount issues can’t be resolved by 2032 they never will be.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑28 Jun 2023, 12:31 Here I assume the 2nd hull’s crew comes from disbanding Argus.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
- new guy • serge750