Future Solid Support Ship

[Poiuytrewq]

Going by recent history it's understandable to instantly think 'CUT' but could it just be an element of cost control?

If minds are focused from the outset on keeping costs at a sensible level better value for money may be obtained. The ship builder and RN will be keen to ensure that budget and timescale targets are met so the option for the third vessel is taken and the full 3 hulls get built.

If the programme gets bogged down as more and more things from the wishlist get bolted on only 2 hulls get built.

Seems logical but then again it might just be a cut.

As ever, time will tell...

[dmereifield]

With Fort Victoria undergoing refit now to last her to late 2020s, why order a third now?

Ok, fair point. In that case, why was the original requirement set at 3?

[Repulse]

With Fort Victoria undergoing refit now to last her to late 2020s, why order a third now?

Ok, fair point. In that case, why was the original requirement set at 3?

It is 3, it's just when all need to be replaced IMO

[shark bait]

Actually the original requirement was set at two. That would guarantee one is available for each carrier.

The third comes from the merging the roles of the sea base and fleet support elements of the MARS programme.

1 is needed for the carrier group.
1 is needed for the amphibious group.
1 is in port waiting for the other carrier.

[RetroSicotte]

With Fort Victoria undergoing refit now to last her to late 2020s, why order a third now?

By the time the third one would be completed, Victoria would be gone.

[ArmChairCivvy]

1 is needed for the carrier group.
[1 is needed for the amphibious group.]
1 is in port waiting for the other carrier.

That is my recollection, too. Except that the arithmetics it is based on are suspect:
-during air ops a replen at least every 7 days; for intensive ops more often
- how quickly are stores (esp. of avgas) emptied
- what is the turnaround time (Including transits both ways) for the likely areas of Ops?
- so two are needed just for keeping the pendulum moving
- set the 2nd carrier to sea, in whatever role: makes for the 4th (as a requirement)

The above does not even consider (in a serious way) the resupply of a landed force
- 30 days used to be planning assumption (on ships that sailed out with the embarked force)

[Gabriele]

With Fort Victoria undergoing refit now to last her to late 2020s, why order a third now?

What does that change? It was always expected the Forts would start to go out around 2024, and Victoria was always going to be the last. One year more or less in a programme like this matters little. They regularly go late anyway.

[Pymes75]

7000m2 is not massive, might leave room for some additional features...

Agreed. It's barely bigger than Fort Victoria (6,318m3) and smaller than Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin (10,100m3). This seems odd given the much bigger air wing the QEC carriers are capable of embarking (and therefore much greater ammunition requirement) not to mention the need to support 3Cdo.

I do wonder if these vessels will be given expanded medical facilities (Fort VIc currently has a 12x Bed + 1x OR) to potentially replace Argus. 2-3x SSS with a 50-bed / 2x OR complex would offer a much more flexible maritime medical capability: a 50-bed complex for a Task Group deployment with a single SSS right up to 150-bed medical capability for a major (Task Force) operation in which 2-3x SSSs are deployed.

[Pymes75]

7000m2 is not massive, might leave room for some additional features...

Agreed. It's barely bigger than Fort Victoria (6,318m3) and smaller than Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin (10,100m3). This seems odd given the much bigger air wing the QEC carriers are capable of embarking (and therefore much greater ammunition requirement) not to mention the need to support 3Cdo.

I do wonder if these vessels will be given expanded medical facilities (Fort Vic currently has a 12x Bed + 1x OR) to potentially replace Argus. 2-3x SSS with a 50-bed / 2x OR complex would offer a much more flexible maritime medical capability: a 50-bed complex for a Task Group deployment with a single SSS right up to 150-bed / 6x OR medical capability for a major (Task Force) operation in which 2-3x SSSs are deployed.

[shark bait]

FSS.png

Looks like we have a new look FSS.

[inch]

where did this come from shark bait ? mmh think I like the look of the older design better tbh, but see what design gets thru in the end up I suppose

[shark bait]

It from the DES Corporate Plan.

I assumed this was a Tide Class derivative, which would be nice, but BMT have conformed it isn't theirs.

What do we think are the benefits of moving the bridge and accommodation aft?

[dmereifield]

FSS.png

Looks like we have a new look FSS.

Any indication of specs? Well dock etc?

[Tempest414]

looks like a nice ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

No need for well dock. Make it simple, cheap, and enable 3 hulls to be procured.

[Timmymagic]

t from the DES Corporate Plan.

I assumed this was a Tide Class derivative, which would be nice, but BMT have conformed it isn't theirs.

What do we think are the benefits of moving the bridge and accommodation aft?

Given the bidders will all come up with their own designs, this looks awfully like someone has taken a Tide Class image and extended some bits/added some bits to come up with a fictional FSS. Probably they wanted a new image to be used to differentiate it from previous MARS images that implied rather more capability than will in fact be delivered.

[Timmymagic]

from the DES Corporate Plan.

I assumed this was a Tide Class derivative, which would be nice, but BMT have conformed it isn't theirs.

What do we think are the benefits of moving the bridge and accommodation aft?

From the shape of the front of the bridge superstructure I think its just a re purposed image of a Tide Class, I don't think we can read too much into it. Particularly given the fact there doesn't appear to be much room near to the Heavy RAS gear to prepare loads for jackstay transport across to the recipients. Not sure what is going on with the flight deck hangar area. I think this is just a CGI for illustration purposes only.

[Gabriele]

Don't be fooled by the superstructure following the AEGIR / Tidespring style. If you dig up a photo of the USNS T-AKE Lewis and Clark class you'll see where this design comes from.

Apart from coming from the same Naval Design Partnership team of MOD and Industry that came up with the previous option. You can see "NDP" on the side of the ship in the picture.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's barely bigger than Fort Victoria (6,318m3)

Ft Victoria getting double hulled is down to the type of supplies carried on it, but (I believe) not on FSS. So for solid supplies the comparison is not as bad as what it looks on the surface.

[benny14]

I think we can expect it is nearly identical to the Tides. With the majority of the fuel storage converted to hold solid stores. If we are lucky it might have a side ramp on the starboard side to unload vehicles like the Norwegian version.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The quoted has been appended to a year old article on the Save The Royal Navy site as an update
"Subsequent to writing this article, DE&S announced RFA Fort Victoria will have her oil tanks modified to be double-hulled (probably by Cammel Laird) to conform to MARPOL standards. This should allow the life of the ship to be extended to keep 3 ships available to support the carriers until the first FSS arrives sometime around 2024."
which would time the three(?) FSS deliveries to happen between 2024 and 2029 (the 2029 coming from the separate Ft Victoria update announcements for its OSD).
- the unknown is how quickly the two other Fts will be leaving service

EDIT: A newer article on the same site has the exact stats for Ft Victoria (is the FSS spec - as there will be many competing designs bid according to it - still too general to have included the same numbers?):
"Fort Vic can embark 3,377 m3 of ordnance and 2,941 m3 of dry stores. Her original oil capacity was a total of 11,000 tonnes but this will be reduced by the double-hull modifications. For context, to completely fill the QEC diesel fuel tanks requires around 4,800 tonnes with a further capacity of approximately 3,700 tonnes for aviation fuel. (Fort Vic can provide oil as well as stores but the QEC are likely to rely on the Tide class tankers as their main supplier of oil at sea)."
- so one big "slurpp" would, in theory, leave the ship - if it has segregated tanks - dry
- explains the 4 tankers vs 3 FSS ratio

[RetroSicotte]

No need for well dock. Make it simple, cheap, and enable 3 hulls to be procured.

Much as I adore the idea of an SSS that can launch LCVP and have a small well dock to permit to operate as a solids and solids deployment support vessel (which would be a huge capability jump) at this point it seems they'll be lucky to even just get 3 proper logistics vessels at all, so very much, keep it to the core requirement.

[Gabriele]

If the F-35B acquisition goes tits up as is increasingly likely between A and Typhoon fantasies, the carriers won't need much stores replenishment anyway.

[shark bait]

No need for well dock. Make it simple, cheap, and enable 3 hulls to be procured.

I tend to look at it the other around; add a well dock, so a future assault platform can be kept cheap and simple, AKA HMS Ocean 2.

[Aethulwulf]

The primary role of the FSS is to provide food, ammunition, medical supplies and spare parts to the fleet and amphibious ops. It is never going to be designed to do that and have a secondary role as a LPH or LPD. Its a supply ship - not an amphibious assault warship.

It's secondary roles will include provision for a R2 medical facility. This, together with the Chinook capable flight deck, will allow it to be used for sneaky SF ops or Maritime Interdiction Ops by Juliet Coy of 42 Cdo, RM.