Minor point but for surge, the RN are counting on 3 sorties a day per F-35. But not for long. I assume pilot fatigue limits it more than anything else. 2 sorties a day can be sustained.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks. The last sentence is my point. Also, as I understand QEC needs 36 F35s to provide 72 sorties a day = unlikely to happen by 2030.Aethulwulf wrote:... the new FSS should be able deliver up to 300 tonnes an hour.
Fort Victoria can only use one RAS station with QEC, which is restricted to 2 tonne loads. Assuming the same rate of 25 loads an hour, this equates to 50 tonnes an hour [*]. ...
The debate is really how likely are such high intensity combat ops? 720 Paveway IVs are a big chunk of the whole of the UK's stockpile.
Your simple calculation (very nice) tells us, if it is 10-15 sorties a day (the same to "Charles de Gaulle left the Persian Gulf in late-April 2015"), it will be 5 times easier (if 15). So, your "3.6 hours with Fort Victoria" becomes 43 minutes. Adding other cargo, may be 1-2 hours? Not bad.
FSSS is "much better" of course, that is the reason we need it. My comment is on "if we cannot afford it NOW". And I am seriously afraid it is "highly" un-likely. (I think RN must have not been ordering T31, but rather ordered FSSS. But, now RN is going to spend 2B GBP with T31, and Rosyth is tied up with it.)
Future Solid Support Ship
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Just shows the madness of getting rid of RFA Fort George in 2011, could have given much needed breathing space.
With new RNs CEPP focused operating model the T31 for me is increasingly looking ridiculous. I’m with a lot of @Donald-san is saying - but would go further. Scrap the T31 now, build two Fort IIIs as compensation but with the 5t HAS. Then focus on a building an RFA Argus replacement before moving onto LSD / LPD replacements. Reopen Appledore for a new MHPC class to deliver in the late 2020s. To crew these FFSs, sell both Waves. Simplies
With new RNs CEPP focused operating model the T31 for me is increasingly looking ridiculous. I’m with a lot of @Donald-san is saying - but would go further. Scrap the T31 now, build two Fort IIIs as compensation but with the 5t HAS. Then focus on a building an RFA Argus replacement before moving onto LSD / LPD replacements. Reopen Appledore for a new MHPC class to deliver in the late 2020s. To crew these FFSs, sell both Waves. Simplies
”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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I was going to like the post, but had to back-pedal to this partRepulse wrote:Just shows the madness of getting rid of RFA Fort George in 2011, could have given much needed breathing space.
- the other folly was saving £19 per scrapped AS90... take the turret off, turn them into ammo carriers... and save several million per piece
Who's doing the [mgt] accounts? Fire them!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Sorry, this is off topic, but probably worth saying. Appledore is gone.Repulse wrote:Reopen Appledore for a new MHPC class to deliver in the late 2020s.
If you're going to save a high-skill manufacturing facility do it before it closes. Once the workforce is dispersed it's finished, especially in a relatively remote location like Devon.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Was there not some talk of them building a fishing fleet for the Faroe Islands? If so would be great news for the local area and any of their former staff who are still based nearby. Perhaps they might even have future orders with our plentiful post Brexit fishing waters...RichardIC wrote:Sorry, this is off topic, but probably worth saying. Appledore is gone.Repulse wrote:Reopen Appledore for a new MHPC class to deliver in the late 2020s.
If you're going to save a high-skill manufacturing facility do it before it closes. Once the workforce is dispersed it's finished, especially in a relatively remote location like Devon.
However as a going concern for UK naval shipbuilding, it didn't even have the scale or facilities (before closure) to build some of the smaller Type 31 concepts. HMS Scott had to be built diagonally, which isn't bad for a specialised singleton class but isn't going to afford any really economies of scale that you get from concurrent construction for something like MPHC.
Perhaps Appledore can sustain itself as a civil yard that does the occasional Irish OPV (probably no need for a while)? Trying to keep it going with make work projects for the Royal Navy seems like a waste of resources, especially when Cammell Laird struggles for shipbuilding work and Babcock is investing heavily in Rosyth as their main base.
Regarding the Fort Rosalie class. At 45 years old, making substantial structural changes to ships built well before CAD came of age, looks risky at best. Especially if they are going to be delicately transferring munitions at close quarters with the crown jewels of the British armed forces.
If we're still pursuing the Littoral Strike Ship concept (which I rather hope we aren't), then they might have some value as trials platforms. They have substantial aviation facilities, huge internal and deck spaces, with plentiful cranes for transferring all manner of stuff. Seems a cheap way of trying out the idea, without spending millions riping apart a perfectly good, and increasingly rare, Point class, much less buying bespoke platforms.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
They need to pick basically an existing design, only add what is absolutely necessary and have them (two probably) built in the UK with the MoD committing its £1.5Bn and any additional funding to come from other departments whose areas of responsibility would benefit form their construction.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Easy to say, but there are no modern solid support ships. The closest is the USNS Lewis and Clark, which is two decades old now, everything else has been a tanker apart from the odd ball HNLMS Karel Doorman.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
The Farnco-Italian design and Navantia's might both be a tad smallLord Jim wrote:They need to pick basically an existing design, only add what is absolutely necessary and have them (two probably) built in the UK with the MoD committing its £1.5Bn and any additional funding to come from other departments whose areas of responsibility would benefit form their construction.
... but perhaps Navantia will scale theirs up? Make GIB their home port
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
A quick and dirty comparison of Naval Auxiliaries from around the world.
Plus simple tankers do not convert well because zero consideration given to intermediate decks.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Farnco-Italian design and Navantia's might both be a tad small
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
That chart really shows how capable Fort Vic is and how well she stacks up compared to the rest of west.shark bait wrote:A quick and dirty comparison of Naval Auxiliaries from around the world.
Plus simple tankers do not convert well because zero consideration given to intermediate decks.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The Farnco-Italian design and Navantia's might both be a tad small
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
And what a mistake it was to get rid of Fort George. The two older Forts should have been scrapped.Jake1992 wrote:
That chart really shows how capable Fort Vic is and how well she stacks up compared to the rest of west.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Couldn’t agree more, it really shows they’re even more than a match for the US’s Lewis & Clark class.tomuk wrote:And what a mistake it was to get rid of Fort George. The two older Forts should have been scrapped.Jake1992 wrote:
That chart really shows how capable Fort Vic is and how well she stacks up compared to the rest of west.
Is we had both Fort Vic and Fort George still a small small up grade to the RAS equipment could of allowed us to put back FSS a little while longer.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Doesn't add a great deal but from Chief of Defence staff to the Defence Committee on Tuesday
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/652/pdf/
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/652/pdf/
Q10 Mr Jones: May I ask you about one of the issues that came out of last
week’s NAO report, “Carrier Strike”, on the fleet solid support vessels.
Again, they have been delayed for quite a while, but they are obviously a
need if we are to be able to deploy our carriers. Where are we at with
that?
General Sir Nick Carter: The competition was cancelled towards the end
of last year. The reason for that was that none of the solutions coming
forward represented value for money. The idea is to re-compete it, and
the requirement is being written at the moment. I would guess that the
Secretary of State will ask for it to go out to competition relatively soon—
certainly by the end of this calendar year, I would have thought, although
that is not yet confirmed.
What does that mean for carrier deployment? We have sufficient logistic
shipping to be able to support IOC of carrier strike in December this year.
Importantly for the carrier’s first operational deployment in 2021, we also
have sufficient logistic shipping to be able to support it.
Q11 John Spellar: National or international competition?
General Sir Nick Carter: I do not know. Much will depend on how the
requirement is written.
Q12 John Spellar: Is it not important? One of the great factors in support of
defence out in the community is that many communities associate with it,
some of them for military reasons, but a lot for industry. Is it not
important to maintain that, quite apart from retaining that industrial
capacity? Precisely, if you are going to engage with industry, there has to
be an industry to engage with.
General Sir Nick Carter: Certainly, and I know that those will be factors
that the Secretary of State will take into account when he issues the
competition.
Q13 Chair: Are the fleet solid support ships warships?
General Sir Nick Carter: They will be painted in warship colours but they
are logistic shipping.
Chair: That is not my question.
General Sir Nick Carter: Again, it depends how the requirement is
written. Obviously, they will be part of a war-fighting capability, so—
Chair: If they are warships, they need to be built in the UK.
General Sir Nick Carter: Again, let us see how the requirement is
written.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Just to add a couple more..the Fort Vic's really are/were an impressive capability.Jake1992 wrote:That chart really shows how capable Fort Vic is and how well she stacks up compared to the rest of west.
RNoMS Maud - 27,500 t, stores 1,000 t, fuel 13,800 t - Uses BMT Aegir design, smaller sister to UK Tide Class
RNZN Aotearoa - 26,000 t, stores 440 t , fuel 9,500t - Ice strengthened
USNS Supply Class - 48,000 t, stores 2,400 t, fuel 17,300 t
Chinese Type 903A - 23,400 t, stores 680 t, fuel 10,500 t
Chinese Type 901 - 45,000t+, stores not known but likely similar to USNS Supply Class
Indian Deepak Class - 27,500 t, stores 500t, fuel 15,500 t
Germany Berlin Class - 20,000 t, stores 550t, fuel 9,300 t - Also bought by Canadian Navy
JMSDF - Mashu Class - 25,000 t, stores 500t , fuel 11,000t
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Which once again shows what an idiotic move it was to bin Fort George!! I have a feeling the decision on the FSSS is going to be pushed back and back as the various groups argue over things like where it is built, is it a warship etc. They have a pot of money but they seem to want more than this can afford.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I agree it really does show the stupidity of the axing and how having Fort George now would allow the delay in FSS that seems needed.Lord Jim wrote:Which once again shows what an idiotic move it was to bin Fort George!! I have a feeling the decision on the FSSS is going to be pushed back and back as the various groups argue over things like where it is built, is it a warship etc. They have a pot of money but they seem to want more than this can afford.
To me though are we really going to say that £1.5bn is not enough to build 2-3 SSS ? I know they’re complex vessels but £500m-£750m per vessel not being enough really.
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
All those freezers and air conditioners...
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…
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…
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
It was definitely a mistake. Although I've seen different reasons as to why, ranging from the cost of double skinning her to her material condition being very poor. The double skinning argument seems moot in hindsight as Fort Vic had it done and Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin have both had a couple of refits each since the SDSR, the cost of which would have covered double skinning and re-fitting Fort George. And lets face it the Rosalies are never going to go out to sea again. The lack of crew could have been addressed as both the Forts Rosalie's in Birkenhead (and unlikely ever to leave except to be scrapped) will each have an RFA crew onboard doing some care and maintenance. Combine the 2 and you're probably not far off crewing a Fort Vic Class...Lord Jim wrote:Which once again shows what an idiotic move it was to bin Fort George!!
I do wonder if the real reason (apart from money) was that she was built by Swan Hunter...they didn't have the best reputation for quality towards the end. One of the reasons that Largs Bay was chosen to be sold to the Australian's was that she was the only Swan Hunter finished Bay Class...
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
I am wondering that if the project was stopped due to the requirements not matching the budget, then what were the requirements. It could be that the RN wanted to match the Fort II’s whereas the budget was really to replace the Fort I’s. A lot of the need for additional helicopters and FFBNW AAW missiles was that they could be operating alone. Given the current direction this seems unlikely, even though I think Fort Victoria would be the perfect LRG support ship.
Perhaps the answer is 3 x BMT design for the CBG FSS requirement and 2 BMT Ellida to replace the 3 LSDs as part of the LRGs.
Perhaps the answer is 3 x BMT design for the CBG FSS requirement and 2 BMT Ellida to replace the 3 LSDs as part of the LRGs.
”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
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
They were always going to operate with the original T23's, which were little more than tugs for towed arrays (although quite how VL Sea Wolf would have protected other ships was never really explained...).Repulse wrote:A lot of the need for additional helicopters and FFBNW AAW missiles was that they could be operating alone.
Given the number of VL Sea Wolf sets lying around following T23 upgrades we could actually stick one on Fort Vic....no real point though, but it would be funny..
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Someone who served on both Fort classes told me "The new forts were built for a very niche role, expensive to run, over engineered pieces of shit"Lord Jim wrote:Which once again shows what an idiotic move it was to bin Fort George!!
So I guess they looked at the spread sheet and couldn't afford to keep Fort George running, but they could for the older simpler forts. With hindsight it turned out a poor decision because the old forts don't leave Birkenhead, and they've messed up the replacement project.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Well now we have the good old Daily Telegraph quoting " Defence Insiders " :-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... dget-cuts/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... dget-cuts/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Future Solid Support Ship
Politicking- the FSS should likely be one of the safest things. It facilitates "Global Britain" and UK "Tier 1 military capability" (or similar politician babble) via enabling Carrier Projection, and is "shovel ready", will inject cash onto the UK shipbuilding industry, help kickstarter the economy and secure the "red" (now blue) wall