Probably - if they stuck to logistics there’s a chance, but can’t see it working with its current commitment’sPoiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 18:01Are we approaching the point where the RFA just isn’t viable anymore?Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 17:56 Shows the complete farce of using the RFA for critical tasks.
https://x.com/navylookout/status/170417 ... AEmCklKdgA
Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
”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: 3363
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
- Has liked: 345 times
- Been liked: 703 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
The headcount is so low now would it’s hardly worth the hassle.
Perhaps the possibility of a RN support fleet should be explored. Strikes and an inability to maintain the headcount cannot be allowed to endanger national security.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- Repulse
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
I mean if private sector pay rises above the public sector pay too much, why be in the even lower paying RFA?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 18:01Are we approaching the point where the RFA just isn’t viable anymore?Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 17:56 Shows the complete farce of using the RFA for critical tasks.
https://x.com/navylookout/status/170417 ... AEmCklKdgA
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5204
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Has liked: 574 times
- Been liked: 587 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
It is simple. Thanks that RFA member is more directly connected to merchant shipping word, it just clarified that the payment is too low. Just it.Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 20:00Probably - if they stuck to logistics there’s a chance, but can’t see it working with its current commitment’sPoiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 18:01Are we approaching the point where the RFA just isn’t viable anymore?Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 17:56 Shows the complete farce of using the RFA for critical tasks.
https://x.com/navylookout/status/170417 ... AEmCklKdgA
The same will happen to RN. Just taking some time because of hiring system difference.
As I myself said in the past, manning a few RFA vessels with RN will be a good stop gap, but it will not solve the lack of man power, as RN itself is suffering man power crisis.
T32? Throw it away. Many MHC LSV? Impossible.
Increase the pay. If not, even the current “gapped” escort fleet will become difficult to mann, and the 3rd FSS will be sold immediately, or canceled.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6278
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
- Has liked: 21 times
- Been liked: 166 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Good idea! Maybe call it the Royal Auxiliary Fleet?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 20:36 Perhaps the possibility of a RN support fleet should be explored.
- These users liked the author shark bait for the post (total 2):
- new guy • Jensy
@LandSharkUK
- Poiuytrewq
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
- Has liked: 345 times
- Been liked: 703 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
It matters not what it is called. It just needs to work.shark bait wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 23:01Good idea! Maybe call it the Royal Auxiliary Fleet?Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 20:36 Perhaps the possibility of a RN support fleet should be explored.
It’s time to fix it or change it.
RN must be decisive now or the RFA is going to derail what should be a massive UK success story over the next decade.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6278
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
- Has liked: 21 times
- Been liked: 166 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
The RFA is not going to derail the Navy.
The Navy is also suffering the very same shortages, meaning dissolving the RFA, and narrowing the talent pool is only going to exacerbate the problem.
The Navy is also suffering the very same shortages, meaning dissolving the RFA, and narrowing the talent pool is only going to exacerbate the problem.
@LandSharkUK
- Poiuytrewq
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
- Has liked: 345 times
- Been liked: 703 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Completely agree. It’s currently totally unsustainable without complete reform.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 22:44 As I myself said in the past, manning a few RFA vessels with RN will be a good stop gap, but it will not solve the lack of man power, as RN itself is suffering man power crisis.
T32? Throw it away. Many MHC LSV? Impossible.
Increase the pay. If not, even the current “gapped” escort fleet will become difficult to mann, and the 3rd FSS will be sold immediately, or canceled.
The Waves should be providing valuable capability EoS. Great ships.
Asking the RFA to do even more is going to be disastrous.
The size of the fleet cannot be dictated by RFA recruitment. If it can’t be fixed it will have to be amalgamated into RN.
Time for decisive action now.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5204
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Has liked: 574 times
- Been liked: 587 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
My point was, to rise the payment of BOTH RN and RFA. Having two organization is not a big problem for me.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 23:19Completely agree. It’s currently totally unsustainable without complete reform.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 22:44 As I myself said in the past, manning a few RFA vessels with RN will be a good stop gap, but it will not solve the lack of man power, as RN itself is suffering man power crisis.
T32? Throw it away. Many MHC LSV? Impossible.
Increase the pay. If not, even the current “gapped” escort fleet will become difficult to mann, and the 3rd FSS will be sold immediately, or canceled.
The Waves should be providing valuable capability EoS. Great ships.
Asking the RFA to do even more is going to be disastrous.
The size of the fleet cannot be dictated by RFA recruitment. If it can’t be fixed it will have to be amalgamated into RN.
Time for decisive action now.
Unifying them is also not a big problem for me. But, unifying them without pay-rise will not solve the problem. Keeping the two organization but rising the payment will solve the problem. So, unification is unrelated. Payment is the key.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
- Poiuytrewq
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
- Has liked: 345 times
- Been liked: 703 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Fair points but as RN rely more and more on the RFA for crucial capabilities the threat of strikes is potentially unsustainable.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑20 Sep 2023, 00:01 My point was, to rise the payment of BOTH RN and RFA. Having two organization is not a big problem for me.
Unifying them is also not a big problem for me. But, unifying them without pay-rise will not solve the problem. Keeping the two organization but rising the payment will solve the problem. So, unification is unrelated. Payment is the key.
Given how small the RFA actually now is what are the advantages? Would it actually save money to streamline into one organisation?
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Pay is definitely a factor and I agree money will need to be found (cuts elsewhere) to do this. However, it’s not all about money, it’s as much to do about career growth and retention (difficult in a small organisation), and dependency for key capabilities such as MCM on the shoulders on an overstretched organisation that can strike.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 22:44It is simple. Thanks that RFA member is more directly connected to merchant shipping word, it just clarified that the payment is too low. Just it.Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 20:00Probably - if they stuck to logistics there’s a chance, but can’t see it working with its current commitment’sPoiuytrewq wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 18:01Are we approaching the point where the RFA just isn’t viable anymore?Repulse wrote: ↑19 Sep 2023, 17:56 Shows the complete farce of using the RFA for critical tasks.
https://x.com/navylookout/status/170417 ... AEmCklKdgA
The same will happen to RN. Just taking some time because of hiring system difference.
As I myself said in the past, manning a few RFA vessels with RN will be a good stop gap, but it will not solve the lack of man power, as RN itself is suffering man power crisis.
T32? Throw it away. Many MHC LSV? Impossible.
Increase the pay. If not, even the current “gapped” escort fleet will become difficult to mann, and the 3rd FSS will be sold immediately, or canceled.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5204
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Has liked: 574 times
- Been liked: 587 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Interesting photo. Virtually, the same size. Makes me feel why not get the same/syster hull, for commonality?
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- Jensy
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Because bought off open market that's why.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:22 Interesting photo. Virtually, the same size. Makes me feel why not get the same/syster hull, for commonality?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5204
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Has liked: 574 times
- Been liked: 587 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
I know. But, it is also "commonality" was not required. If required, MOD should have been finding vessels that meet the requirement.new guy wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:28Because bought off open market that's why.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:22 Interesting photo. Virtually, the same size. Makes me feel why not get the same/syster hull, for commonality?
Anyway, not sure how their operation/maintenance cost will continue to be.
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
If required, then it would just be easier to buy new from a foreign yard or make our own class.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 16:26I know. But, it is also "commonality" was not required. If required, MOD should have been finding vessels that meet the requirement.new guy wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:28Because bought off open market that's why.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:22 Interesting photo. Virtually, the same size. Makes me feel why not get the same/syster hull, for commonality?
Anyway, not sure how their operation/maintenance cost will continue to be.
- Poiuytrewq
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3363
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
- Has liked: 345 times
- Been liked: 703 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Commonality is great but sometimes it’s another word for bespoke.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 16:26 I know. But, it is also "commonality" was not required. If required, MOD should have been finding vessels that meet the requirement.
Bespoke is another word for very expensive and not readily available.
When operating commercial vessels the commonality is automatically included.
- These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Member
- Posts: 958
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
- Has liked: 1675 times
- Been liked: 234 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Both ships were designed and built by Vard, just different designs used for different purposes.
- These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
- Jensy
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Slightly different roles though, Stirling Castle is for trials as a mine warfare drone mothership as opposed to Proteus being for sea bed cable protection.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 15:22 Interesting photo. Virtually, the same size. Makes me feel why not get the same/syster hull, for commonality?
Proteus sister ship is on sale just now. Portsmouth news has a story about the ship today stating another ship will be built/purchased soon. Surely a no brainer to pick up the sister ship?
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... ty-4346944
- These users liked the author Dahedd for the post (total 2):
- new guy • donald_of_tokyo
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6278
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
- Has liked: 21 times
- Been liked: 166 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
The sister ship is Topaz Tiamat. How do you know it's for sale?
@LandSharkUK
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
Positive it was mentioned back when Proteus was first purchased. Maybe she's gone now.
I'll edit that.....going back through this thread I came across a post by you saying they should buy the sister ship. I obviously got my wires crossed.
I'll edit that.....going back through this thread I came across a post by you saying they should buy the sister ship. I obviously got my wires crossed.
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
May be available back end of next year unless contract extension
Has proteus also had this retro fitted 1300 kW SeaQ Energy Storage System
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/boskali ... 20619.html
Has proteus also had this retro fitted 1300 kW SeaQ Energy Storage System
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/boskali ... 20619.html
- These users liked the author Ianmb17 for the post (total 3):
- Poiuytrewq • donald_of_tokyo • wargame_insomniac
-
- Member
- Posts: 958
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
- Has liked: 1675 times
- Been liked: 234 times
Re: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships
That to me is a sensible plan.Ianmb17 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2023, 12:05 May be available back end of next year unless contract extension
Has proteus also had this retro fitted 1300 kW SeaQ Energy Storage System
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/boskali ... 20619.html
In the long term it would be better for UK shipbuilding if we could build any MROSS in UK, but H&W Belfast will be busy with the 3*FSS, and I am not sure what capacity CL would have. So I do think in the short term it is more practical for us to buy second hand the 2nd MROSS.
The end of next year will give a few months of (hopefully soon) RFA Proteus working under full operating conditions, seeing exactly what can do in parctice, and if there end up being any potential issues / problems for the exact work that need MROSS to fulfill.
I hope there won't be any issues or problems with the design following practical operations because on paper the design should be perfect for the role intended. But it is better to be sure from practical experience.
If so (assuming all goes well with Proteus) then I hope UK seriously considers buying Topaz Tiamat, as it will make two sense to have two near identical ships working together rather than start having a mismatch of various designs for the MROSS role.
- These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
- Dahedd