UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 09:45

SD67 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2022, 09:04 It looks like H&W for FSS then Amphibs (then QE refit option?)
CL for the second MROSS which should be a clone of RSS SDA, and refit work, and blocks
Scotland for Frigates
Barrow for Subs
Appledore for OPVs and smaller (Border patrol cutters?)

Something like this:

Govan/Scotstoun: T26 followed by T83
Rosyth: T31 followed by T32 plus all CVF refits
H&W Belfast: FSS followed by Amphibs and Wave/Point replacements
H&W Appledore: All Survey, OPV and Patrol vessels
Barrow: All Subs
Cammell Laird: RFA refit work

Also, I am not entirely convinced about another RRS SDA for the MROSS for a couple of
reasons. Rolls Royce sold its commercial marine business to Kongsberg in 2018. Not a deal breaker but perhaps a bit more problematic due to the intended use of the vessel. Also, the RRS SDA was specifically designed for Antarctic research work. The ice breaker facility and large accommodation allocation really isn’t needed for the MROSS. The forward facing hanger is small, can a Wildcat even fit? Looks tight. The design could be adapted but adapting to RN standards could be expensive.

An adapted BMT design built at Appledore seems just as likely IMO. Something derived from Salvas perhaps,
https://www.bmt.org/projects/project/33 ... liary-ship

We have two separate MROSS orders. The first one is going to be a commercial design, being bought off the shelf. It's more likely to be something like the Salvas utility auxiliary ship you listed or platform supply vessel (PSV) or diving support vessel (DSV). Whereas the second one is going to be designed and purpose-built.

I can't find the reference to the relevant article, but I read that the first one will be smaller and would cover North Sea and irish Sea, whilst the second one would be intended more for deep ocean work, presumably for North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and Greenland / Barents Seas.

I don't think we need a dedicated Icebreaker with one of the higher Polar Classes (PC) ratings. We are not an Arctic Power per se, but we do have an interest in keeping an eye on the seabed with telecoms cables vital to the security and finances of the UK. With HMS Protector and RRS Sir David Attenborough both based mainly in the Antartic, I think it does UK no harm if it has one vessel that it can safely deploy to the Arctic, even in northern winter.

Both HMS Protector and RRS Sir David Attenborough have similar sized crew complement of around 88 and accomodation for 100/90. The latter ship includes 60 scientists for research purposes. It may be for the larger ocean going MROSS role, the ship might need less accomodation and more room for sensors and diving equipment, helicopers and USuV's etc.

So I am not averse for a yard like Cammell Laird to take the lead in building the second MROSS, adapting the RRS Sir David Attenborough design, and then subequently going on to build an adaptation of that design to eventuallty replace HMS Protector in the late 2020; / early 2030's.

Repulse wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 09:04 I think it’s a given that the two MROSS will replace the remaining Echo and HMS Scott. The later has the ability to operate in Ice but is not an ice breaker.

Given however that the Artic is going to be a region of increased interest, perhaps another commercial conversion like HMS Protector would be the best approach for the first MROSS. This would then give the ability to always perform Survey operations in this and the South Atlantic.

The second vessel can the be more specialist like HMS Scott is.

RichardIC wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 09:46 Russia's getting increasingly meddlesome in the high north and as as more ice melts the situation is going to get worse.

Cooper wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 10:10 In terms of conventional threat, Russia is done, for the next decade at least.

shark bait wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 10:23

Cooper wrote: ↑18 Nov 2022, 10:10 In terms of conventional threat, Russia is done, for the next decade at least.

Yes it is.

I'm concerned about the unconventional threats, one of which is attacking infrastructure, and that seems a more likely outlet for Russian aggression now.

RichardIC wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 10:32 So not the Normand Jarl.

Meet the future RFA Proteus

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 18:57why is the heli-pad in front of the bridge

shark bait wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 19:35

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑17 Jan 2023, 18:57why is the heli-pad in front of the bridge

Because the money maker on these ships is the work deck on the back. They're the pickup trucks off the offshore industry, so they want the bed to be as big a possible.

Caribbean wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 11:58 Not hanging about, are they?