Future Solid Support Ship

[Lord Jim]

With the new Carriers being the most visible defence programme to the general public and the fact that the FSS is key to them being able to carry out their role I would say the Navy will find other ways to save money such as retiring and possibly selling the T-23 GPs and Sandown MCVs for a start. Saying that our Armed Forces are so taught these days that any efficiencies/cuts are probably going to hurt as there is so little left that isn't core to our defence needs.

[Timmymagic]

Saying that our Armed Forces are so taught these days that any efficiencies/cuts are probably going to hurt as there is so little left that isn't core to our defence needs.

The problem for our current lords and masters is that they've been running on the cuts and 'efficiencies' mantra for that long that they genuinely have little more to offer. There isn't a government dept. outside of DFID that has anything left to cut. After 10 years of conservative government the idea that there is any fat left to cut or 'efficiencies' left is for the birds.

[RichardIC]

There isn't a government dept. outside of DFID

Doesn't exist any more. It's been cut. Sorry, off topic.

[Lord Jim]

The Navy Top Brass need to put forward a strong case, along the lines of if we don't have this then we cannot do this, covering both capabilities and mass. Regarding FSS they need to say that without them the Carrier Group is going to be restricted as to where it can operate and for how long, which as it is going to be the UK's primary means of showing our ability to project power globally, will be very detrimental to the countries image.

[donald_of_tokyo]

A quick and dirty comparison of Naval Auxiliaries from around the world.

The Farnco-Italian design and Navantia's might both be a tad small

Plus simple tankers do not convert well because zero consideration given to intermediate decks.

I was thinking of this for a while.

French Marine Nationale has been "going on" with their Durance-class tanker to support their CVTF. Those ships can handle only 170 t of provisions, 150 t of munitions and 51 t of spare parts in addition to fuel and water (sorry from wiki). Very small amount of solid stores. But yet their CVN CdG plays some part in strike package in Syria and Libya.

Then

1: Smallish modification/upkeep of either Fort Austin or Fort Rosalie to use them until 2030 will provide "enough" supply to do something "the same to the CdG TF" with QNLZ and PoW? Combined with Fort Victoria also modified to be active until 2032, this will work? Re-supply will be slow compared to FSSS requirement, but surely NOT SLOW compared to French CVTF can undertake.

2: Another option is to modify Tides to carry some munitions. For example, Norwaian HNoMS Maud can carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 40 ISO containers or a mix of vehicles and boats in addition to fuel and water (sorry from wiki, again). If 4 Tide-class can be modified to carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 200 tonnes of other stuffs each, they are already exceeding the capacity the 5 (now 3) French Durance-class can provide to their CVTF. In addition, UK has (only one) Fort Victoria.

Yes, here I am proposing to "postpone" FSSS build to start (steel cut) at 2026 to commission the first hull on 2030, followed by the second hull on 2032. This will surely force "full strike capability" to be postponed until 2030 (when two "Fort-level" SSS comes), but "interim" strike capability (comparable to French CVTF's capability) shall be doable. Also, full air-defense and full-ASW capability is already OK, because these tasks never needs such a huge amount of ammo.

By doing so, Rosyth can be the integrator of the FSSS. T31's steel work will fade out around 2026-27 = can start block building of FSSS from ~2026. The dock shall be used for assembly of the blocks by ~2028. By then, most of the integration work of T31 also comes to end, and many "skilled labor" will be there waiting for the next job.

This will enable the 300-500 skilled labors (and 1000-2000 in the supply chain) "grown/trained" within T31 program to "survive" until 2032 or so, when (hopefully) LPD/LSD replacement may start. (Yes, I am here assuming LPD and LSD replacement will be delayed. Lack of money often results in delay. We see it normally. NOT ASSUMING such delay is tooooooo optimistic. )

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, Given their age, reports on their structural state and cost of upgrades, I think any further use of Fort Rosalie or Fort Austin would be very limited to the point of throwing good money after bad.

[Scimitar54]

And what resource will be used for this updating? Babcock in Rosyth? The FSS are already well overdue. The mistake was probably calling them “Future”. They are needed now!

[Timmymagic]

2: Another option is to modify Tides to carry some munitions. For example, Norwaian HNoMS Maud can carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 40 ISO containers or a mix of vehicles and boats in addition to fuel and water (sorry from wiki, again). If 4 Tide-class can be modified to carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 200 tonnes of other stuffs each, they are already exceeding the capacity the 5 (now 3) French Durance-class can provide to their CVTF. In addition, UK has (only one) Fort Victoria.

The Maud's deck arrangements are so different from the Tide's that you just couldn't do that. You'd lose the ability to run 2 lines at once to the carrier. I'm afraid you'll have to make do with the 8 TEU's on deck with the Tides.

[Tempest414]

2: Another option is to modify Tides to carry some munitions. For example, Norwaian HNoMS Maud can carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 40 ISO containers or a mix of vehicles and boats in addition to fuel and water (sorry from wiki, again). If 4 Tide-class can be modified to carry 200 tonnes of ammunition and 200 tonnes of other stuffs each, they are already exceeding the capacity the 5 (now 3) French Durance-class can provide to their CVTF. In addition, UK has (only one) Fort Victoria.

The Maud's deck arrangements are so different from the Tide's that you just couldn't do that. You'd lose the ability to run 2 lines at once to the carrier. I'm afraid you'll have to make do with the 8 TEU's on deck with the Tides.

Could a Wave class be re-rolled they have space for

125 tonnes of lubricating oil
500 m3 of solids
150 tonnes of fresh food in eight 20 ft

if they lost some of there tanking say from 16000 meter sq to 10000 could they carry more

[Repulse]

Tempest414, I thought that, but given the need to be able to flood ammunition stores etc, not sure how cost effective it would be.

[shark bait]

Could a Wave class be re-rolled they have space for if they lost some of there tanking say from 16000 meter sq to 10000 could they carry more

It'll be very challenging because tankers have a very simple structure designed for hydrostatic loads. It would need a total rebuild to accommodate point loads and intermediate decks.

If an interim solution is required, convert a cargo ship, not the brand new purpose built tankers.

[Timmymagic]

If an interim solution is required, convert a cargo ship, not the brand new purpose built tankers.

And before you do that...have a look at MV Asterix and its costs and timeline and instead just order the FSS..

[shark bait]

MV Asterix cost about a third of the budget the Canadians have for a new build ship.

[Tempest414]

Could a Wave class be re-rolled they have space for if they lost some of there tanking say from 16000 meter sq to 10000 could they carry more

It'll be very challenging because tankers have a very simple structure designed for hydrostatic loads. It would need a total rebuild to accommodate point loads and intermediate decks.

If an interim solution is required, convert a cargo ship, not the brand new purpose built tankers.

Ok maybe convert a Point class it has all the room needed and a 21 knot speed for keeping up with the task group

[Timmymagic]

MV Asterix cost about a third of the budget the Canadians have for a new build ship.

Not any more....., its about a 1/6th now, the price has gone up, again. They're primarily aimed at subsidising the resurrection of Canadian ship building but the cost of the 2 x Protecteur Class has now risen to CAN$4.1 bn (£2.4 bn). That's for 2 decidedly average tankers based on the German Berlin Class. So £1.2bn per vessel. MV Asterix, the interim tanker, is £400m for a 5 year lease. Being generous the annual running costs are similar to Fort Vic at £15m per year (and Asterix is more likely c£10m). So they're paying £325m for a ship for 5 years....any additional years beyond that are charged at CAN$75m a year (£48m). And there are likely to be at least 4 of those additional years...so another CAN$300m (£175m) at least. So all told MV Asterix is likely to cost at least close to £600m for a ship with a 9 year lifespan.....how much were the 4 Tide Class again?

In comparison the Norwegians bought the far more capable HNoMS Maud outright for under £180m (adjusted for inflation, with 100% offsets).
The New Zealanders got the Aotearoa for c£250m. Both Maud and Aotearoa are more capable than the Berlin Class based Protecteurs and are also Ice-strengthened.

The Canadian's have managed to do it again....they are worse than the MoD here by a dramatic degree.

Look at the notes right at the bottom for the full cost..
https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... port-ships

[donald_of_tokyo]

And what resource will be used for this updating? Babcock in Rosyth? The FSS are already well overdue. The mistake was probably calling them “Future”. They are needed now!

Cammell Laird? They are actually modifying Fort Victoria. Modifying Fort Austin or Wave or Tides, is can be done at CL, if technically doable.

Could a Wave class be re-rolled they have space for if they lost some of there tanking say from 16000 meter sq to 10000 could they carry more

It'll be very challenging because tankers have a very simple structure designed for hydrostatic loads. It would need a total rebuild to accommodate point loads and intermediate decks.
If an interim solution is required, convert a cargo ship, not the brand new purpose built tankers.

Not sure. If it is 400t of munitions, it is a tiny fraction of the total ship load. Tiny. If a cargo ship can be converted, a tanker can also be. We are not talking about 7000t of solid cargo.

Fort Austin/Rosalie is the best solution I think. Ship status? There are many cases they overcomed such things. Not able to carry heavy RAS rig? No problem, not requiring 5000-6000t of cargo. About 3000t (slightly less than the 4000t currently capable of) will be enough. It is anyway interim solution.

If Waves can be converted for interim solution, it will be "nice". As they will be likely lost in the next cut, modifying them with "400t of munition" each (even if in place of losing 30-40% of field load) will be able to "save" them. Again, it is just an interim solution. Looking at French navies' case, even 200t of munition is "much more better than nothing", I guess.

If we think "small", in the next cut, RN will lose both Fort Austin/Rosalie, postponed FSSS, and also lose both of the Waves. "Tide modification" option is for this case. Again, even 200t of munition is "much more better than nothing", I guess.

[shark bait]

The above sounds like a collection of really bad compromises.

If things are really bad just deal with Fort Victoria
If things are bad, just built one SSS
If things are good build two SSS

[donald_of_tokyo]

If things are really bad just deal with Fort Victoria

Sure? Then, mothballing PoW will come up as a "good alternative", I'm afraid. As RN can "strike" with only one SSS, then, why they need two CVs? If RN can "go along with" one SSS for a decade, why need two in future?

If there is only 1 SSS, it means RN is NOT going to use 2 CV, I think.

[shark bait]

That is some extraordinarily warped logic.

Following that logic the French have zero carriers, which is clearly not true.

[donald_of_tokyo]

That is some extraordinarily warped logic.

Following that logic the French have zero carriers, which is clearly not true.

?? They have 3 (initially 5) Durance class supply ships.

[Repulse]

Then, mothballing PoW will come up as a "good alternative", I'm afraid.

Don’t agree with this - keeping both carriers active is a must, and I do not see the need for a FSS in all roles. Would say that in a ASW role for example in the North Atlantic (9 ASW Merlins, 9 CAP F35Bs and 4 AEW Merlins) a Tide would be sufficient.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then, mothballing PoW will come up as a "good alternative", I'm afraid.

Don’t agree with this - keeping both carriers active is a must, and I do not see the need for a FSS in all roles. Would say that in a ASW role for example in the North Atlantic (9 ASW Merlins, 9 CAP F35Bs and 4 AEW Merlins) a Tide would be sufficient.

This is true, I agree. But, this simply means, SSS is not in hurry and maybe not even needed. QLNZ and PoW themselves has large arsenal. And if they gut food and fuel, they can operate until their arsenal/magazines get empty.

I'm afraid this is exactly what French navy is doing.

Then, quite serious question rises.

Do RN need SSS?

I think they do, and I think two is MUST. So, it will either go to Spain (or other country), or to "Spain" (using H&W dock) with a little number of local engineer with little future, or shall be postponed until late 2020s. This is what I meat.

[Ron5]

Then, mothballing PoW will come up as a "good alternative", I'm afraid.

Don’t agree with this - keeping both carriers active is a must, and I do not see the need for a FSS in all roles. Would say that in a ASW role for example in the North Atlantic (9 ASW Merlins, 9 CAP F35Bs and 4 AEW Merlins) a Tide would be sufficient.

Glorious & Courageous spring to mind.

[Repulse]

Do RN need SSS?

The answer remains yes, but with some additional thought, RFA Fort Victoria and a working with allies like the RAN, RNZN and USN, then a tapping of 10 years to replace Vic with two FSSs isn’t the worst thing that can be gapped (like MPAs or Carrier Ops like in 2010).

[Scimitar54]

If there are only 2 x SSS then there can only be 1 x actives CSG!