Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 175 times
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 25 Jun 2022, 17:28 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-look ... -lift-uav/

Perhaps we should be building our Future Solid Supply Ships with flat-tops…
So when we talked about making the MRSS a flat top you were against it now you want to make the SSS a flat top.

I still like the idea of making the MRSS into a 200 x 30 meter flat top as it is its job to support troops both in getting over the Horizon and then backing them up these would not be LHD's as there would be no dedicated hangar just a lift to the lower deck

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 158 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 11:10 So when we talked about making the MRSS a flat top you were against it now you want to make the SSS a flat top.

I still like the idea of making the MRSS into a 200 x 30 meter flat top as it is its job to support troops both in getting over the Horizon and then backing them up these would not be LHD's as there would be no dedicated hangar just a lift to the lower deck
In short yes I would distinguish the two, though if the RN went back to the original MARS scope and were again looking at Joint Sea-Based Logistic ships, I would support them being flat-tops. In fact having 2 JSBLs (one at the core of each LRG) would IMO solve a number of gaps, including RFA Argus’s decommissioning.

The problem of the MRSS and any idea of LHDs is that we end up again focusing on a small number of larger vessels. Also, we are combining too many roles into one platform - making it sub optimal for them all.

The UK will never do an amphibious assault like D-Day without years of ramping up. What is needed is a fleet of more numerous and smaller / cheaper ships capable of operating close to shore with air and logistical support OTH.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
donald_of_tokyo
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 175 times
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

But we will never have loads of small ships as they will be cut and cut and cut

Plus also the SSS need to be dedicated to resupply of the CSG and with all current thinking in the MOD has the MRSS at 200 x 30 size ships and if this remains the case then making them a 200 x 30 flat top like the JMSDF Osumi class will go along way to ticking a lot of boxes

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 158 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

I agree the FSSs are for the two carriers. Having them flat-top would allow them to be resupplied from land also for critical kit. I must admit also though the comment I originally made was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and it shouldn’t be at the top of the priority list.

However (and this is the wrong thread), having two JSBLs, or let’s call them SHDs (Support Helicopter Docks) if it makes it clearer has a lot of merit (and cheaper than LHDs).

As we’ve debated elsewhere, to avoid fragile eggs in a small number of fragile baskets operating unnecessarily in high risk areas, having more a fleet of smaller / more numerous ships is the only way. What’s more, they can be afforded with a good drumbeat, perhaps making them the only platform that the RN could possibly build in any volume in any realistic war timeframe.
”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

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1051
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by jonas »

Commons written answers 30th June 2022 :-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-23/23720

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 159 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

From today's Defence Select Committee session with Ben Wallace:

- The budget for three FSSS: £1,617M

- Final bids in for the end of July 2022

- Contract given by the end of Q1 2023

- RFA Fort Victoria to serve till the end of 2028 (not expected to need a further full refit)

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... ab44b04d71
These users liked the author Jensy for the post (total 6):
donald_of_tokyoTempest414Repulseserge750wargame_insomniacArmChairCivvy

tomuk
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

Jensy wrote: 05 Jul 2022, 15:28

- RFA Fort Victoria to serve till the end of 2028 (not expected to need a further full refit)

Fort Vic is alongside now for upkeep and the RAdm didn't deny any further refits would be needed just that he could cover the requirements i.e. Fort Vics refits will be sync'd with those of the QECs and future deployments.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7460
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 109 times
England

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SKB »


navynewbie
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 13 Jul 2022, 16:42
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by navynewbie »

Repulse wrote: 26 Jun 2022, 15:02 In short yes I would distinguish the two, though if the RN went back to the original MARS scope and were again looking at Joint Sea-Based Logistic ships, I would support them being flat-tops. In fact having 2 JSBLs (one at the core of each LRG) would IMO solve a number of gaps, including RFA Argus’s decommissioning.
What sort of ships would the JSBLs been? What capabilities were they to have provided? I've tried googling, but not found anything of detail.

Thanks

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 158 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

navynewbie wrote: 20 Jul 2022, 22:51
What sort of ships would the JSBLs been? What capabilities were they to have provided? I've tried googling, but not found anything of detail.

Thanks
The best overview of the JSBL requirement I’ve seen is in Nick Childs book Britain’s Future Navy, pages 132-133.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ApH ... bl&f=false
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
ArmChairCivvynavynewbie
”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

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1268
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 6):
donald_of_tokyojedibeeftrixJdamRon5serge750Lord Jim

Jdam
Member
Posts: 653
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 83 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jdam »

Harland & Wolff inclusion in Team UK is a nice little touch.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 11 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by GarethDavies1 »

That's one of the worst CGI image I have seen for while.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

So they are basically a build from new RFA Argus. Take on RORO train ferry, remove the train and vehicle decks replace with dry stores and RAS gear.

PS Its an ugly blighter a look of HHGTTG 1981 Marvin the Paranoid Android.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 158 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

No MK41 VLS?
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Jensy
”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

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2460
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 61 times
Been liked: 30 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Caribbean »

And where's the 5" gun?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Remember it is an RFA not a RN warship. It only is the latter when it comes to how and where it is built and fitted out, or at least that was the revised plan.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4509
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 148 times
Been liked: 154 times
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars

tomuk
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 52 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by tomuk »

A bit wider and nearly 20m longer than RFA Fort Victoria

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3637
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 33 times
Been liked: 175 times
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the thing that stands out is the lack of a full width hangar and a second spot for operating up to 4 helicopter plus I would ditch the Phalanx and fit 4 x 40mm

SomeoneAh
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2022, 21:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SomeoneAh »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Aug 2022, 02:54 Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars
A bit off topic if the ferries design are picked for the FSS, the ferries spec looks like it can be a good LPD for the RN, Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LPD.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 40 times
Australia

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by R686 »

SomeoneAh wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 02:28
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 05 Aug 2022, 02:54 Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars
A bit off topic if the ferries design are picked for the FSS, the ferries spec looks like it can be a good LPD for the RN, Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LPD.
I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 3147
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 115 times
Been liked: 158 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

R686 wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 04:12 I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability
Not only the Point class, but IMO part of the troop transport role covered by the Bay Class.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3367
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 233 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

It depends what you mean by troop transport role. Every study ever done shows keeping troops embarked on a ship reduces there fighting capability quite quickly. The way you get troops anywhere is to fly them in the a330s you transport there equipment by sea and marry up the to at a port.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 40 times
Australia

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 08:14
R686 wrote: 06 Aug 2022, 04:12 I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability
Not only the Point class, but IMO part of the troop transport role covered by the Bay Class.

Yep that would be good say 4 ships and then Albion's & Bay replaced with JC1/CBR LHD and let the QE's be what they were designed for
These users liked the author R686 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply