It probably just confirms are reduction in readiness the Forts at Birkenhead started out with a skeleton crew and that reduced to a Cammel Laird provided 'nightwatchman' security and very basic maintenance cover as I understand it.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑12 Jun 2023, 14:46Basically for the money saved by disposal this decision isn’t worth the negative PR.
Use them or lose them!
Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
good Value for money IMO.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mothbal ... -per-year/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mothbal ... -per-year/
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.
- These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
- Jensy
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Should crew them and use them.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
- new guy • wargame_insomniac • serge750
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Crew them with?
- These users liked the author RichardIC for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
I'd make that a Norwegian style Aegir-18R if possible. Whatever MRSS eventually brings is going to need sustaining and the FSS is carrier focused.
- These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 4):
- RichardIC • SW1 • Caribbean • wargame_insomniac
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operationsRichardIC wrote: ↑17 Nov 2023, 12:08Crew them with?
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- GarethDavies1
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 08:59As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Hate to say it, but there isn’t the money / crew to run them, nor the requirement given fewer singleton ship deployments / move to carrier groups. Having them sat there is just a waste of valuable resources.
”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: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
We have 7 singleton deployments in 5 regions at present and they would all of been supported by a tanker in the past mainly the rover class. There is no lack of demand in this area.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
This is a good idea for a tide batch 2, and more valuable than keeping the Waves mothballed untill eventually sold. Better to sell now and move forward!
Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS. As for the others, they don't need a tanker following them around, borrowing one from an ally or port visits are examples of good defence engagement.
- These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 3):
- Repulse • donald_of_tokyo • Jensy
@LandSharkUK
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Correct on the rivers but they won’t always be rivers.shark bait wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 10:58This is a good idea for a tide batch 2, and more valuable than keeping the Waves mothballed untill eventually sold. Better to sell now and move forward!
Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS. As for the others, they don't need a tanker following them around, borrowing one from an ally or port visits are examples of good defence engagement.
If they don’t need a tanker why are they borrowing one?
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Absolutely, with the exception of perhaps LRG(S), both of which ships have good range, can’t think of a Singleton currently that needs a Tanker. Also, as @Sharkbait points out OPVs do not need tankers.
”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: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
There’s a cheaper and easier way to solve that problem.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assetsdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 10:10Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 08:59As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
The singletons should not be putting much demand on the tanker fleet apart from training in UK waters. It voids the whole concept of a simple and lean manned T31 if it needs a whole other ship to follow it around.
The Royal Navy is transitioning away from standing commitments with singleton gun ships, to a a Carrier Group Navy (and litoral group to a lesser extent). The independent tasks are very much side projects to benefit diplomacy, and 90% of the focus goes on the main event.
The Royal Navy is transitioning away from standing commitments with singleton gun ships, to a a Carrier Group Navy (and litoral group to a lesser extent). The independent tasks are very much side projects to benefit diplomacy, and 90% of the focus goes on the main event.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Any photos of a river 2 doing it?
And we don’t own the river in that photo it was sold
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Sorry, again. Simply lease a Wave to, say, Estonia, and THEY (the 3 nations) themselves form the Baltic-NATO subgroup including the Wave, is what I said. The same output with your proposal. In other words, why you need RN man-power to do it.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 11:19Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assetsdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 10:10Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 08:59As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations
RN commanding the ship and providing the engineering support, and the 3 nations providing the junior rates? By disbanding their own assets? That's not the way they like it to be, I guess.
Just imagine, RN is asked to provide crews to fill the USN CVN man-power shortage, in the name of NATO fleet. I'm 100% sure RN will say no.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Just did some analysis.SW1 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 11:51Any photos of a river 2 doing it?
And we don’t own the river in that photo it was sold
HMS Clyde had a "triangular post with two holes" starboard of the 30 mm gun, which I understand used for RAS. We can see two holes around the top, one around the bottom and another two holes on the wall.
Then on HMS Forth, we can find similar "pole" with 3 holes, and another two holes on the wall, at the right edge of this photo.
I guess River B2 can do RAS. At least, designed to be capable of.
[EDIT] I found another one in the port side. A bit forward, but the same architecture.
Are they really the RAS rig? I agree we need some confirmation. But, anyway it is not much different from the RAS rigs used in US FFG-7 class. Oil refuel is the easier part of the RAS.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- new guy
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Most of this is 2-3 years ago when RFA were being used as Patrol craft before the Rivers came online and the refocus towards carrier group ops. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Tankers cannot be assigned to allied groups, but singleton long range deployments aren’t a big requirement anymore.
”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
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
No one has said anything about them getting rid of there fleets yes the UK would give engineering support and Command in the early days however there could and should be a proper training and command program that could and would lead to better trained people across there own naviesdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 11:51Sorry, again. Simply lease a Wave to, say, Estonia, and THEY (the 3 nations) themselves form the Baltic-NATO subgroup including the Wave, is what I said. The same output with your proposal. In other words, why you need RN man-power to do it.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 11:19Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assetsdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 10:10Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 08:59As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations
RN commanding the ship and providing the engineering support, and the 3 nations providing the junior rates? By disbanding their own assets? That's not the way they like it to be, I guess.
Just imagine, RN is asked to provide crews to fill the USN CVN man-power shortage, in the name of NATO fleet. I'm 100% sure RN will say no.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
We currently have 3 escort vessels doing long range singleton deployments arguably 4 if you consider the deployments to the north. In patrol areas previously classed as standing tasks for decades. That’s before you get to the rivers and what will in the next 10 years replace them.Repulse wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 12:06Most of this is 2-3 years ago when RFA were being used as Patrol craft before the Rivers came online and the refocus towards carrier group ops. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Tankers cannot be assigned to allied groups, but singleton long range deployments aren’t a big requirement anymore.
Those links and there are many more showed support to type 23 frigates deployed on Atlantic patrol task south and type 23 and type 45 in the Middle East. They also show a tanker supporting type 23 frigates to the Baltic and arctic north.
We know there has been been a foreign supply vessels supporting nato standing patrol 2 in the med and support the type 45 in the Caribbean this year.
Having fuel/stores ships available to support region of the world are arguably more valuable than committing fighting units to these regions as they are more in demand and fewer in number. But we have not and do not appreciate logistic and support over fighty things.
We would add more value to coalitions it we tied up the bays and manned the waves instead.
The RN has always had a carrier group under whatever name you wish to call it, it’s nothing new regardless of how much PR bull comes out of it championing the current one.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
No objection. For me, what you are proposing is a lease program with initial training support.Tempest414 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2023, 12:12No one has said anything about them getting rid of there fleets yes the UK would give engineering support and Command in the early days however there could and should be a proper training and command program that could and would lead to better trained people across there own navies