Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.
They could possibly replace the Bays in the Caribbean and Gulf if the conversions were possible which would make a big difference to the wider fleet.
They could possibly replace the Bays in the Caribbean and Gulf if the conversions were possible which would make a big difference to the wider fleet.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Sounds good to me. Why not APT(N) and APT(S)? The Waves certainly have done it before.Tempest414 wrote:I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things
Realistically how much would these vessels fetch if sold to Brazil? Maybe £40m or £50m for the pair? Meanwhile we have to spend hundreds of millions on replacement vessels to perform the same role. Seems bonkers
If they really are now surplus to requirements and bearing in mind that they should have a good 15 to 20 years service left in them why not invest a small amount now to turn them into multipurpose vessels. Sounds reasonable enough to consider in my opinion.
With a similar crew allocation to the Bays, the operating costs should be similar and if they were able to relieve the Bays it would be a big win.
The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Agreed!Poiuytrewq wrote:The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.
”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)
Agree on the sentiment, but the reasoning behind the decision is money and manning those issues don’t go away in the short term.Poiuytrewq wrote:Sounds good to me. Why not APT(N) and APT(S)? The Waves certainly have done it before.Tempest414 wrote:I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things
Realistically how much would these vessels fetch if sold to Brazil? Maybe £40m or £50m for the pair? Meanwhile we have to spend hundreds of millions on replacement vessels to perform the same role. Seems bonkers
If they really are now surplus to requirements and bearing in mind that they should have a good 15 to 20 years service left in them why not invest a small amount now to turn them into multipurpose vessels. Sounds reasonable enough to consider in my opinion.
With a similar crew allocation to the Bays, the operating costs should be similar and if they were able to relieve the Bays it would be a big win.
The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Don’t think the waves can really replace the bays versatility and ability to operate boats or off load stores more important in carribean tasking. Also maybe communication or surveillance systems the bays may have that a tanker does not.
It would perhaps of been better to order a 5th tide tanker and remove the wave class, commonality of ship types.
However ultimately the question is do we need 6 tankers? Maybe someone knows more about future fleet size than is currently public. If the requirement is really only to provide a tanker to support the carrier, a tanker for around the uk and perhaps one deployed elsewhere do we need more than 4.
It would perhaps of been better to order a 5th tide tanker and remove the wave class, commonality of ship types.
However ultimately the question is do we need 6 tankers? Maybe someone knows more about future fleet size than is currently public. If the requirement is really only to provide a tanker to support the carrier, a tanker for around the uk and perhaps one deployed elsewhere do we need more than 4.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Absolutely, but if current vessels are sold off cheaply and prematurely and replacement vessels continue to be procured for vast sums, manning rises will be unaffordable and the decline will not stop.R686 wrote:Agree on the sentiment, but the reasoning behind the decision is money and manning those issues don’t go away in the short term.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Very little can replace the versatility of a Bay Class but what 'boats' can a Bay operate that a modified Wave/Joint logistics ship cannot apart from an LCU?SW1 wrote:Don’t think the waves can really replace the bays versatility and ability to operate boats or off load stores more important in carribean tasking.
Is a well dock really necessary for APT(N)?
A modified Wave could unload stores for Hurricane relief in the Caribean via mexefloate just as efficiently as a Bay if configured to do so.
If a Batch 2 River Class is adequate for APT(N) it shouldn't be too hard to refit a Wave to carry out the same task.Also maybe communication or surveillance systems the bays may have that a tanker does not.
If money was no object then I would agree but would that be a luxury or a necessity?It would perhaps of been better to order a 5th tide tanker and remove the wave class, commonality of ship types.
It all depends on the UK's future ambition. One thing is for sure temporary manning issues is not a good reason to dispose of perfectly good and recently refitted vessels.However ultimately the question is do we need 6 tankers? Maybe someone knows more about future fleet size than is currently public. If the requirement is really only to provide a tanker to support the carrier, a tanker for around the uk and perhaps one deployed elsewhere do we need more than 4.
The lack of a coherent long term strategy is obvious.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.Poiuytrewq wrote:Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.
I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Poinytrewq
The landing craft and mexeflote mainly. Not sure how you would get either of them on a wave tanker. The bay has cranes diggers truck ect that it can offload not sure how u do that from a wave.
If there was enough money to attempt a refit the 2 waves would that be much cheaper than buying a 5 tide for £140m I don’t know.
I think what is more likely is that we don’t need more than 4 tankers. So the question then becomes do we want to keep them to provide a contribution to allied ops and reduce something else to pay for it
The landing craft and mexeflote mainly. Not sure how you would get either of them on a wave tanker. The bay has cranes diggers truck ect that it can offload not sure how u do that from a wave.
If there was enough money to attempt a refit the 2 waves would that be much cheaper than buying a 5 tide for £140m I don’t know.
I think what is more likely is that we don’t need more than 4 tankers. So the question then becomes do we want to keep them to provide a contribution to allied ops and reduce something else to pay for it
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5593
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Short comment. I read somewhere that Tide costed 550M GBP for 4 hull to Daewoo, and another 150M GBP for fitting out in UK. So, 700m GBP for 4 hulls --> 175m GBP per hull.SW1 wrote:If there was enough money to attempt a refit the 2 waves would that be much cheaper than buying a 5 tide for £140m I don’t know.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
For me the Waves could do a good job on AP-N as for a refit they already have a pair of hoofing cranes on them so for me fit mounting points on the main deck for 2 LCVPs and a mexeflote . these could lowed in to the water by the cranes and then the 500 cubic meters of general stores could off loaded to the LCVPs if no port was available.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Exactly, HNoMS Maud is a very well balanced design and a great example of how versatile these multi role vessels can be. This diagram illustrates the generous amount of space that could be utilised for HADR equipment/supplies or to support Amphibious operations. The accommodation and aviation facilities could be vastly improved even if only as a surge capability. It is worth noting that the Waves are considerably larger than HNoMS Maud. Modified Waves with some or all of the tanks removed would be a cost effective way to add a pair of joint logistics/ mothership vessels into fleet, substantially increasing the UK's HADR capabilities and also supporting the Amphibious fleet. I hadn't considered the possibly of a Diligence replacement but why not?shark bait wrote:An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.Poiuytrewq wrote:Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.
I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
It should be possible to add a forward repair capability to any mothership design reasonably easily if required. This would make an excellent alternative for the Bay assigned to Kipion in the Gulf. The similarities between the Wave class and HNoMS Maud are obvious.
RFA Wave Ruler HNoMS Maud Given the size and scale of the Wave Class would a more ambitious conversion be worth considering?
Here is Wave Knight alongside Ark Royal to illustrate the impressive size and potential of these vessels. Personally I think the Damen Logistic Support Vessel concept would be a good basis to proceed from.
This is the Supporter 19000 variant
At 175m it's over 20m shorter in length than the Wave class but it can still pack a lot in.
Damen lists these vessels as suitable for the following tasks,
Logistics and support capabilities (RAS, RO-RO, Ship-to-Shore transfer and LO-LO), Search and rescue, Humanitarian Aid and disaster relief, oil pollution preparedness and protection of trade routes. The heavy duty davits can deploy a LCM which would could be useful for both HADR and Amphibious operations and hanger capacity is large enough to embark 2 medium sized helicopters.
https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ing-craft/
Attaching mexefloates would probably be a better option for RFA use and would free up a lot of extra deck space. This vessel has a vehicle deck of around 1500sqm as well as a cargo capacity of 40 TEU. The vehicle deck can be accessed by a steel beach or via side and stern ramps making for an extremely versatile vessel. Adding to the versatility is the CB90 capability. Four CB90 type vessels can be clearly seen stored on deck along with 2 LCM's and 36 TEU's.
It's not clear how many of these features could be added to a modified Wave but it would reasonable to explore these options fully before disposing of 2 more perfectly useable vessels for more short term book balancing.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
When the time comes, this is the type platform that could take over a bunch of duties. I would say a vehicle deck is a bit of a step too far however, a crane and space on the deck is sufficient.
Would it be a good thing if the MOD could sell the waves now, and set the wheels in motion for a multi-role tanker to enter service at the same time Argus drops out of service?
Would it be a good thing if the MOD could sell the waves now, and set the wheels in motion for a multi-role tanker to enter service at the same time Argus drops out of service?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
The vehicle deck and steel beach would be an extremely useful feature and would make up for the lack of such a feature on the new FSS ships.shark bait wrote:When the time comes, this is the type platform that could take over a bunch of duties. I would say a vehicle deck is a bit of a step too far however, a crane and space on the deck is sufficient.
It comes down to defining a primary role for each vessel with ideally clearly defined secondary and tertiary roles also. If a simple 50t deck crane and ample storage is all that's required then great but I suspect to optimise the hull it would need a more extensive refit.
Ideally, yes, but it may lead to another MARS debacle. I would say by the end of the process it's likely that hull numbers would be cut from 4 down to 3 or from 3 down to 2. The result would be further decline.Would it be a good thing if the MOD could sell the waves now, and set the wheels in motion for a multi-role tanker to enter service at the same time Argus drops out of service?
How much would the Waves cost to modify them into respectable logistic support vessels?
£30m or £40m would go a long way to optimising the Waves for a more multipurpose role.
The big question is what is the priority? Big multipurpose logistic support vessels or pretend frigates like Leander?
I think in the past the UK has been too quick to dispose of vessels even when they clearly have a lot of service life left in them. Hopefully this won't be a case of history repeating itself.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Poiuytrewq
I’m not disputing the utility of such vessels what I’m more asking is at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new. Is that not how we arrived at the bay class, they did one major refit of the round table class and quickly realised buying new was a much better way to go.
Imo when it comes to these rfas, a tanker is primarily a tanker first and foremost and while for example the tides have a helicopter hanger and medical area for example which is good to undertake other roles. Likewise any future stores ships needs to be primarily a fully blown stores ship, with a helicopter hanger and possibly a medial area.
Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
The supporter 19000 ship you’ve linked I think will arrive or something similar but it will be a different class of ship (it’s not a tanker or stores ship) it will be a sea base for sea control and unmanned operations and the sooner we get some the better. innovation and experimentation will be key with this ship as endless option could flow from it. Are we brave enough to innovate and allocate cash to it?? We were once not sure we are now.
I’m not disputing the utility of such vessels what I’m more asking is at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new. Is that not how we arrived at the bay class, they did one major refit of the round table class and quickly realised buying new was a much better way to go.
Imo when it comes to these rfas, a tanker is primarily a tanker first and foremost and while for example the tides have a helicopter hanger and medical area for example which is good to undertake other roles. Likewise any future stores ships needs to be primarily a fully blown stores ship, with a helicopter hanger and possibly a medial area.
Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
The supporter 19000 ship you’ve linked I think will arrive or something similar but it will be a different class of ship (it’s not a tanker or stores ship) it will be a sea base for sea control and unmanned operations and the sooner we get some the better. innovation and experimentation will be key with this ship as endless option could flow from it. Are we brave enough to innovate and allocate cash to it?? We were once not sure we are now.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Yes, it would be useful, and it has to come at the expense of something else. Only so much can be crammed into a platform, at some point there are too many slices of small capability, and none of them on a scale to be truly valuable.Poiuytrewq wrote:The vehicle deck and steel beach would be an extremely useful feature and would make up for the lack of such a feature on the new FSS ships.
(Ask the Dutch navy for an example)
If we're still discussing a reterofit, I'm going to guess it's almost impossible, as the amount of work would surpass the value of the ship.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Of course it's a balance and at some point you reach a tipping point were building new makes more sense. I don't think the Waves are old enough to have reached that tipping point yet and I believe it is worth considering other options for the Waves before they are sold. I am not definitively suggesting the Waves must be converted into logistic support vessels, I am merely keen to explore the possibility to see if the numbers stack up.SW1 wrote:I’m not disputing the utility of such vessels what I’m more asking is at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new. Is that not how we arrived at the bay class, they did one major refit of the round table class and quickly realised buying new was a much better way to go.
I take your point that 4 Tides might be enough, and it might, but logistical support vessels/ motherships are much more than tankers and I believe that these large multipurpose platforms will be more useful to UK interests in the coming years than pretend frigates like Leander.
Argus has been a very successful and highly cost effective vessel but I am not in favour of a like for like Argus replacement. If money was no object the options for an Argus replacement are almost endless but these are difficult times and finding a cost effective way to retain the capabilities of Argus within the fleet by 2026 is vital.Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
My proposal is to split the PCRS role between the 3 Bays and rotate the aviation support/training role around the Bays as required. I would add a large multipurpose mission space to all 3 Bays allowing up to 6 Merlins to be embarked or a multitude of other craft/equipment to enhance the Bays Amphibious Assault capabilities. Adding this mission space to the working deck would have the added bonus of creating a 3rd Chinook capable landing spot. I think 3 Bays configured in this way would complement Albion very well and would allow HMS PoW to return to its primary CVF role. It would be a cheap and effective way to offset the loss of Ocean without consigning one of the carriers to LPH duty.
Of course this would require cost effective replacements for the Bays usual deployments in the Caribbean and the Gulf and I have proposed acquiring 2 commercially derived logistical support vessels to take over from the Bays. An improved Point design would probably work well but the Waves could be the obvious and most cost effective solution. They need be nothing complicated, cost effectiveness would be paramount.
I think there will always be a role for a Diligence type vessel but due to the current financial situation it is hardly a top priority. Converting an existing vessel may be the only way to reintroduce the forward repair capability back into the fleet.
I think you are correct and it's a great shame. I had hoped the T31 programme would produce some useful innovation in this area but it's clear pretend Frigates are going to be the outcome which seems like a missed opportunity to me.The supporter 19000 ship you’ve linked I think will arrive or something similar but it will be a different class of ship (it’s not a tanker or stores ship) it will be a sea base for sea control and unmanned operations and the sooner we get some the better. innovation and experimentation will be key with this ship as endless option could flow from it. Are we brave enough to innovate and allocate cash to it?? We were once not sure we are now.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Please stop turning regular threads into more imaginary fantasy ship threads.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Please stop being so boringSKB wrote:Please stop turning regular threads into more imaginary ship fantasy threads.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
For me if we were to was the Wave class for AP-N full time then just add 2 LCVPs on the fore deck and use the cranes to get them into the water and 2 Pacific 24s ribs between the rigs and the superstructure. Next as in the past they can operate a wildcat or a coast guard helicopter or in hurricane season a HC4 Merlin. Also for me the Waves are worth keeping as part of NATO commitment as with the NATO airforces the Navys suffer from lack of good tankers
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
Agreed, keep it as simple as possible. The biggest challenge for a modified Wave would be getting the Vehicles ashore on a HADR deployment. Could a small Mexefloate be carried on deck?Tempest414 wrote:For me if we were to was the Wave class for AP-N full time then just add 2 LCVPs on the fore deck and use the cranes to get them into the water and 2 Pacific 24s ribs between the rigs and the superstructure. Next as in the past they can operate a wildcat or a coast guard helicopter or in hurricane season a HC4 Merlin.
Would a more capable LCVP be the best solution?
Adapting a Wave for the mothership or forward repair role may be a bit more complicated and expensive.
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
The Waves could be of use as dedicated HADR resources with minimal modification. In disaster relief you need to get water, shelter, food and fuel in place rapidly. Simply re-purpose the fuel tanks for civilian diesel and petrol in place of marine and aviation fuel (may need some changes to pumping and venting gear and vapour sensors etc, but all industry-standard kit). I suspect that they already carry top-end fire suppression equipment anyway. Replace the 500-drum lubricant storage with fresh water tanks or additional solid stores space (approx. 100m3) and revisit the deck container storage to see if more containers/ and or ramped workboats/ LCVPs/ vehicles could be carried when decks don't have to be kept as clear as needed for RAS operations. Mount the mexeflotes on the sides as with the Bays and add a floating pipeline system for delivering fluids to shore. If you need to improve deck capacity beyond that, say by removing the RAS stations, then it would start to get expensive, true, but the base vessel is still very capable.SW1 wrote:at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)
shark bait wrote:An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.
I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
Rebuilding the Waves would cost a fortune and would not be an ideal solution.Poiuytrewq wrote:Would a more capable LCVP be the best solution?
Adapting a Wave for the mothership or forward repair role may be a bit more complicated and expensive.
The Maud is a good design but is also lacking for some tasks.
If we want to 'save' them surely the more useful idea would be to use one for the Bulk Fuel movement role that the Maersk Rapier was undertaking and keep one in service as a tanker or mothballed. At least one would be earning part of their keep then, whilst being available in times of crisis?
As to replacing a Bay in Hurricane season and the RN law enforcement tasking in the Caribbean. Plus looking at replacing Diligence and Argus. The answer has always been staring us in the face. Resurrect the MARS CSS(A) design. It has all the helideck, dock, cargo space, vehicle space, hospital, craneage etc. that you could ever want or need. Get 2 and not only would you have an incredible asset for Amphib operations in time of war. But they could also be used in the FSS role. Think of the benefits:
-Huge helideck and hangar (change the design so it can hangar 2 x Chinook)
- Dock for large landing craft
- Steel beach
- Davits for LCVP
-Mexeflote
- Ability to hold huge volumes of cargo for HADR/Amphib ops/Workshops
- Ability to carry and support large numbers of troops/evaquee's
- Heavy RAS ability
- Massive medical facilities
- Big, big cranes
- Could be re-roled into pretty much anything you require
- A year round Caribbean tasking wouldn't be hard to get volunteers for..
At one stroke you could replace Argus, Diligence, do APT(N) all year round.
But the real bit of genius would be if we could get DFID to pay for it.....after all it would be the UK's main HADR resource, the expanded medical facilities could be used as a mobile hospital for port visits to developing nations, its big so is a great advert for UK plc, 2 additional FSS type vessels would be great news for the UK shipbuilding industry, containerised facilities could be retained to replace Diligence's capabilities with ease. The addition of 2 additional ships to the FSS contract could reduce costs all round, plus there would be more commonality across the fleet.
Of course in times of war DFID would be told to go shove it....
http://www.rfanostalgia.org/gallery3/in ... t/MARS-SSS