Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Scimitar54 »

Hence the electro-mechanical palletised weapons handling systems on QEC carriers. That is far enough until the system is fully proven.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Timmymagic »

Scimitar54 wrote:Hence the electro-mechanical palletised weapons handling systems on QEC carriers. That is far enough until the system is fully proven.
Does anyone know if that approach is being looked at in regard to the FSS? Are they going to have a sort of mechanised warehouse onboard?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by abc123 »

Don't know where to put this news because I don't see any thread about RFA in general, so I'll put it here, mods can move it somewhere else:

https://navaltoday.com/2019/07/02/rmt-r ... -over-pay/
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…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Lord Jim »

It was bound to happen sooner rather than later, and the Government were stupid not to try to treat the personnel of the RFA as a special case at least compared to other Government employees. They could have made quite a strong argument to do so.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Scimitar54 »

Brings a wholly new dimension to "Carrier Strike". :mrgreen:

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved across.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 23:48
Repulse wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 21:45
Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 20:13
Repulse wrote: 04 Jun 2023, 17:23 Also, dreaming of Waves and LSDs is just that a dream unless something changes.
Why?
The 2 Waves are already tied up for lack of crew, and that’s before crew need to be found for an additional 2 Solid Stores ships and MRoSS.
The 2nd MRoSS has supposedly been delayed, and the two additional FSS (three new FSS less current Fort Victoria) are some away from being built. So that is not the reason the two Waves can't be crewed during the next few years.
Tempest414 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 09:52 As for the Wave's we really really need to find away of getting them back into service…….to have two great tankers tide up is madness
As @wargame_insomniac points out the FSS won’t even start construction until 2025 and Fort Vic is laid up again and as @Tempest414 suggests why is the UK leaving such a valuable resource such as the Waves tied up awaiting disposal when they have decades of hull life left? It’s bonkers.

The one thing the UK can do immediately to help allies in the Indo Pacific is to provide the logistics to help other less well equipped navies contribute. Forward basing is great but it can only achieve so much. The four Tides will be required for the CVFs and should be operated from the UK. Basing one Wave in Singapore and the second in Diego Garcia makes complete sense. It non-confrontational and great value for money.

In the next 4-5 years RN will be very short of escorts. Fort Vic will only be operational for short periods and the Tides will be concentrating on the CVFs. The converted PSVs/OSVs are lean crewed so will not require a huge resource. The Bays can use RN crew to supplement RFA crew to lessen the strain on manpower. Therefore this is the perfect time to reactivate the Waves and get them to work. No need for extra funding apart from straightforward refits to get them operational for the next 4-5 years. I think this is a priority now.

It’s also clear the RFA manning issue is fast becoming a crisis. The MoD need to grip this in a hurry.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

Agree that it’s wasteful to say the least to have perfectly good assets tied up due to lack of crew, especially when the Navy is asking for more. Sell them or use them.

However, we really need a review on what the RFA is for. I’d not understand why they are manning the MRoSS and OSVs, equally I do not believe the RFA should be doing anything more than logistics and resupply.

Whilst some of the new platforms will not be active for a few years, crews will need to be found before their ISDs, so the window is quite short.

Personally, I think the RN should be manning the MRoSS/OSV (and LSV) and amphibious platform ships. If there are crew there I would start here and get the 2nd LPD back in service.
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I think the RFA should be set out like so

RFA
5 x Fleet Tankers
3 x Solid Support Ships
3 x RFA LPD's

Full time reserves

5 x Point class
1 x Supply Tanker

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 13:45 However, we really need a review on what the RFA is for. I’d not understand why they are manning the MRoSS and OSVs, equally I do not believe the RFA should be doing anything more than logistics and resupply.
The lines have become so blurred it’s difficult to tell anymore. When a Bay is in the UK it’s RFA, when it’s in Australia it’s RAN. When MCM is conducted by MCMVs it’s RN, when it’s conducted Sterling Castle it’s RFA. If RFA headcount numbers were bountiful then who would argue but leaving highly useful Auxiliaries to rust away in Birkenhead because there isn’t enough crew whilst there is apparently plenty of crew for the newly commissioned vessels is highly regrettable. Where have all the MCMV crews gone?

The problems began when RFA vessels started to fill the gaps in patrol and maritime security taskings. The MoD got hooked on this as an easy fix but I agree, it time for a review of RN/RFA optimum working ratios.
Whilst some of the new platforms will not be active for a few years, crews will need to be found before their ISDs, so the window is quite short.
The window is short but the current fleet is tiny!

If RN and RFA can’t man the vessels that are currently in the water what hope have they in 10 years time?

Adding more classes to the grow the navy is pointless if they can’t be manned. To grow the navy an enlarged headcount will be required. There is no sign currently that any turbo-charged recruitment and/or retention program is due to be implemented.
Personally, I think the RN should be manning the MRoSS/OSV (and LSV) and amphibious platform ships. If there are crew there I would start here and get the 2nd LPD back in service.
Everything should be manned and used. Large reserve fleets are history. Use it or lose it. The RFA has been a jewel in the UK’s crown for years but it’s slipping now due to two decades of under investment.

The Albions don’t need the full complement of 325 for FCF scale taskings. Why not work on a lean manning strategy to bring both LPDs back online either side of EoS?

Retaining Argus shows the direction of travel EoS for the next 10 years. Nothing new will be built for the Amphibious fleet for a decade at least. That’s fine as RN/RFA have everything required for the twin LRG strategy.

By swallowing hard, decommissioning the T23s that are beyond economical repair and using the crews to reactivate the rest of the fleet RN can have a greater presence around the world than has been seen since 2010.

The way things are going that presence could be extremely important.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 13:45 However, we really need a review on what the RFA is for. I’d not understand why they are manning the MRoSS and OSVs, equally I do not believe the RFA should be doing anything more than logistics and resupply.
They are the Auxiliary fleet, not just a logistics service. I think it's highly valuable to have an auxiliary fleet to take care of all the non combatant roles, allowing Navy command to focus on delivering their core capability.

This becomes more relevant as capabilities are becoming more isolated from the ship. The Navy can focus its efforts on payloads and capabilits rather than shipping operations.

It's kind of like how Nasa is focusing more on science, and letting SpaceX worry about the shipping.
@LandSharkUK

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

But the lines between what is a combative and non combative role are very blurred. We’ve had RFA ships in patrolling roles and now we’ve got them hunting mines and Russian subs. Some now think it’s ok that we use the RFA in a littoral amphibious strike role.

The real problem is twofold - firstly are we underestimating or ignoring the risk to ships and people. Secondly, what impact is this having on areas where they should be prioritising such as resupply of fuel and solid stores.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by shark bait »

There is no RAF ship or personnel hunting mines or submarines, but they are giving a lift to the people that do. Instead of moving ammunition, they're moving equipment and people, the difference is small.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 13:08 There is no RAF ship or personnel hunting mines or submarines, but they are giving a lift to the people that do. Instead of moving ammunition, they're moving equipment and people, the difference is small.
How many other navies in the world are doing the same?

The simple fact is that perfectly useable auxiliaries are currently tied up through lack of crew and RN is compounding the issue by gradually decommissioning the MCMVs and replacing them in the MCM role with RFA vessels such as Sterling Castle.

Is the RFA going to be expected to provided the crew for all six MRSS as well as everything else?

It doesn’t have to be done this way, there are alternatives. Look at Largs Bay vs Choules.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by tomuk »

shark bait wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 10:57
Repulse wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 13:45 However, we really need a review on what the RFA is for. I’d not understand why they are manning the MRoSS and OSVs, equally I do not believe the RFA should be doing anything more than logistics and resupply.
They are the Auxiliary fleet, not just a logistics service.
How do Serco and the SD vessels fit into it all. Victoria and Norther River have a passing resemblance to Proteus and Stirling Castle.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 13:08 There is no RAF ship or personnel hunting mines or submarines, but they are giving a lift to the people that do. Instead of moving ammunition, they're moving equipment and people, the difference is small.
The difference is big, they are doing more than just transporting, they are doing MCM operations. Using your analogy RFAs can carry be armed with nuclear missiles as they are just transporting them. We need to have a honest discussion, my view is that the RFA is there to resupply only.
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Tempest414 »

The Bays are supporting MCM ops not doing MCM ops. The ops are under taken by mcmv's and unmanned MCMV,s

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:42 The Bays are supporting MCM ops not doing MCM ops. The ops are under taken by mcmv's and unmanned MCMV,s
It isn’t a problem as long as the MoD is intending to double the current headcount of the RFA.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:42 The Bays are supporting MCM ops not doing MCM ops. The ops are under taken by mcmv's and unmanned MCMV,s
Disagree if the RFAs are delivering the MCM capability somewhere and delivering something else elsewhere then maybe, they’re not they are acting as motherships so very much a key part of the operations.
”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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 21:37
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:42 The Bays are supporting MCM ops not doing MCM ops. The ops are under taken by mcmv's and unmanned MCMV,s
Disagree if the RFAs are delivering the MCM capability somewhere and delivering something else elsewhere then maybe, they’re not they are acting as motherships so very much a key part of the operations.
They are there in a Logistical role in the same way that Fort Vic is very much key with the CSG she spends most of her time with CSG and carries Merlin HC4's as well as solid and liquid stores in support of operations this dose not make her a carrier or escort in the same way the Bay's support MCM ops

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jun 2023, 08:56
Repulse wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 21:37
Tempest414 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 20:42 The Bays are supporting MCM ops not doing MCM ops. The ops are under taken by mcmv's and unmanned MCMV,s
Disagree if the RFAs are delivering the MCM capability somewhere and delivering something else elsewhere then maybe, they’re not they are acting as motherships so very much a key part of the operations.
They are there in a Logistical role in the same way that Fort Vic is very much key with the CSG she spends most of her time with CSG and carries Merlin HC4's as well as solid and liquid stores in support of operations this dose not make her a carrier or escort in the same way the Bay's support MCM ops
Rhubarb - Fort Vic is there to resupply only, you make my point for me by pointing out it does carry F35s etc. The Bay in the Gulf acting as a MCM HQ is historically not unusual, it’s a bit like the old sub depot ships, and I’m fine with this. What I’m not fine with is the Bay acting as a MCM mothership, a very different role. Equally I’m not ok with the trend to make LSDs be more than transporting kit and turn them into assault LPDs.
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
serge750

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

FFS - completely stupid and completely predictable. The RFA has now lost a 2 Solid Store Ships and 2 Tankers in the past year.

I’ll go a naively dream that the only silver lining may be that the RN is allowed to keep the proceeds as a down payment on a Karel Doorman to base EoS and replace Argus.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Absolutely pathetic decision.

This is the worst decision made since Largs Bay.

Where are the crews coming from for 4x Tides, 3x FSS, 6x MRSS plus the MROSS etc etc?

Rather than fix the recruitment and retention issues it’s cheaper to just hollow-out the enablers.

The decline continues.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
Tempest414new guyGarethDavies1

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Repulse »

The RFA only has crew to support the 4 Tankers, 3 FSS and a multi-role support ship like Argus. That’s it - the sooner we can to terms with this the better.
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 10 Jun 2023, 12:17 The RFA only has crew to support the 4 Tankers, 3 FSS and a multi-role support ship like Argus. That’s it - the sooner we can to terms with this the better.
3x FSS and 4x Tides is only enough to support a single CSG as one of each will likely be undergoing a maintenance period when required.

Is that now the level of UK ambition even in a maximum effort scenario?

We now have a shrinking Royal Navy and a shrinking Royal Fleet Auxiliary. No point trying to dress it up. It’s a national disgrace and frankly negligent.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
GarethDavies1dmereifieldnew guywargame_insomniac

Post Reply