Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 811 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:07 Isn't the core FREMM still there. Yes, there have been major changes to the design but wasn't it designed so that the vessel could be radically altered whilst retaining its core. Yes, the USN's Constellation is a far greater alteration than the differences between the Italian and French FREMM. It is probably an example of GFE being provided on a drastic scale, but if it works and the USN get a class of ships it needs then the design has worked. The T-31 is another example. The current export customers have significantly changed the ships design, but the core remains the same. Hopefully we may do something with the T-26 core design when we are looking for future escorts. It should be big enough and has many of the capabilities already designed in the RN would like. Saying that though, the RN might do better to develop the T-31 hull in future as it is a proven adaptable design so should have a reduced risk. As for the FSS, it is a shame they were not ordered at the same time a the relevant Oilers. It may have been possible then for both classes to have a sense of commonality, sharing the basic hull design as well as engines, sensors and other electronics and so on.
Team Resolute, the preferred bidder for FSS, includes BMT who also designed the Tide Class tankers, and I beleive that they will share some common components.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1295
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 16:58
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:07 Isn't the core FREMM still there. Yes, there have been major changes to the design but wasn't it designed so that the vessel could be radically altered whilst retaining its core. Yes, the USN's Constellation is a far greater alteration than the differences between the Italian and French FREMM. It is probably an example of GFE being provided on a drastic scale, but if it works and the USN get a class of ships it needs then the design has worked. The T-31 is another example. The current export customers have significantly changed the ships design, but the core remains the same. Hopefully we may do something with the T-26 core design when we are looking for future escorts. It should be big enough and has many of the capabilities already designed in the RN would like. Saying that though, the RN might do better to develop the T-31 hull in future as it is a proven adaptable design so should have a reduced risk. As for the FSS, it is a shame they were not ordered at the same time a the relevant Oilers. It may have been possible then for both classes to have a sense of commonality, sharing the basic hull design as well as engines, sensors and other electronics and so on.
Team Resolute, the preferred bidder for FSS, includes BMT who also designed the Tide Class tankers, and I beleive that they will share some common components.
Ordered a decade apart, so hopefully not. But if you know better feel free to tell us.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3614
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 319 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 13:19
SW1 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 15:17
Ron5 wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 14:43
The Constellations are a lousy example of your argument. The US doesn't focus it's investment in a few industries and then buy foreign platforms to re-equip. They being built in the US by US workers.
No it isn’t. The US spends more money than is sensible on defence so it can do whatever it wants. No one else has such luxury even if they act like they do.

The constellation class is a gd example of exactly my argument of what to do, license build a design and integrate it with systems developed in your our country.
You've switched your argument mid stream. You first maintained the UK shouldn't build "each last bit" but buy the platform built elsewhere and refit with UK engines etc.

Now you are saying built every last bit in the UK but buy the design from somebody else. Still mad as a box of frogs but now a different box.

I'm done with this.

PS The US spends more money than is sensible on defence. ??? Oh really. Jeesh.
As your have difficulty reading what I wrote I will repeat it for you

“ We need to be able to assembly, integrate and test major equipment purchases across the services in the UK not build every last bit. That therefore allows you to focus investment into specific high end areas like propulsion, radar, sensing systems and weapons and ensure we can integrate them into the designs we select.”

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 811 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by wargame_insomniac »

RichardIC wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 18:35
wargame_insomniac wrote: 19 Nov 2022, 16:58
Lord Jim wrote: 18 Nov 2022, 22:07 Isn't the core FREMM still there. Yes, there have been major changes to the design but wasn't it designed so that the vessel could be radically altered whilst retaining its core. Yes, the USN's Constellation is a far greater alteration than the differences between the Italian and French FREMM. It is probably an example of GFE being provided on a drastic scale, but if it works and the USN get a class of ships it needs then the design has worked. The T-31 is another example. The current export customers have significantly changed the ships design, but the core remains the same. Hopefully we may do something with the T-26 core design when we are looking for future escorts. It should be big enough and has many of the capabilities already designed in the RN would like. Saying that though, the RN might do better to develop the T-31 hull in future as it is a proven adaptable design so should have a reduced risk. As for the FSS, it is a shame they were not ordered at the same time a the relevant Oilers. It may have been possible then for both classes to have a sense of commonality, sharing the basic hull design as well as engines, sensors and other electronics and so on.
Team Resolute, the preferred bidder for FSS, includes BMT who also designed the Tide Class tankers, and I beleive that they will share some common components.
Ordered a decade apart, so hopefully not. But if you know better feel free to tell us.
You do so love your snarky comments don't you. I had said "I believe".

When I looked again the word I had misremembered was "commonality" and not "components".
I will leave it to your eteemed wisdom to tell us what "commonality" means.....

"The ships will be the second longest UK military vessels behind the two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. They will have commonality with the RFA’s Tide class fleet tankers, also built to a British BMT design"

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... fss-ships/

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1295
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoleonard

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 16:37
When they said 60% of the work was to be done in the UK, I wonder if the percentage was calculated by weight.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3614
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 319 times
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

I don’t know how to posit it here but if anyone has LinkedIn they can search for Ian ure he is ctso at Harland and Wolff and has shared a cgi video of the yard upgrade and building sequence in belfast.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Post Reply