Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

I wonder what the cost difference would be between putting permanent hangers on the Bays and Albion’s compared to a vehicle deck an steal beach on the 3 SSS ?

Bongodog
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

shark bait wrote:A RoRo deck is cargo space, nothing is diluted.
It is however very different cargo space to what is required for the FSSS. FSSS will carry thousands of items ranging from missiles to toilet rolls to cornflakes. Each item needs to be stowed securely and able to accessed without moving lots of other cargo. On land it would be the difference between a farmers bulk grain store and a racked out Amazon warehouse.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Welcome Bongodog!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Bongodog wrote:
shark bait wrote:A RoRo deck is cargo space, nothing is diluted.
It is however very different cargo space to what is required for the FSSS. FSSS will carry thousands of items ranging from missiles to toilet rolls to cornflakes. Each item needs to be stowed securely and able to accessed without moving lots of other cargo. On land it would be the difference between a farmers bulk grain store and a racked out Amazon warehouse.
I think this is over egging it a bit I am sure the RN load planner's could get the most out of a RORO deck I am also sure that a country that has just come up with a vaccine that can be kept in any fridge can come up with a QC racking system that can be towed on or off as needed

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

There is some kind of mystique surrounding these cargo ships, and I'm not sure where it comes from. They are ships with segregated cargo holds, fitted with blast doors, and connected with wide roads for forklift trucks. Its nothing ground breaking.

I think it probably comes from the air weapons stores on the carriers, which is very complicated. (below)

Image

However if 'Save the Royal Navy' is to be believed, the automated handling system will not make its way onto the solid support ship. Instead that will look more like the image below;

Image

The above image is taken from the Lewis and Clarke class in US service, which is the only example of a modern solid support ship. It's not particularly complex, neither would it be a complex engineering challenge to merge a small number of these holds to create a large multi-use cargo hold.

This larger cargo hold could store no hazardous materials, vehicles, ISO containers, extra accommodation or even a medical facility.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: neither would it be a complex engineering challenge to merge a small number of these holds to create a large multi-use cargo hold.

This larger cargo hold could store no hazardous materials, vehicles, ISO containers, extra accommodation or even a medical facility.
Not my area of interest/ expertise, but as for how the RN navy ships 'used to be' we can go back to the Falklands: the TF had to sail in a hurry, so some ships were carrying the nukes (depth charges are known of, as a category)
- in the midst of everything else, great effort went into getting them into the 'deep mags' of the supply ships, as opposed to staying on carriers/ frigates much exposed as targets for Exocet or other types of hits
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

The bay class store lots of supplies in iso containers in there vehicle deck when there Caribbean. There will be I assume specialised areas for ammunition but there can’t be much of issue with generalised stores moved in this way.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Of far more use than a vehicle deck etc. will be decent aviation capabilities like a hanger for up to four Merlins or two Chinooks of whatever type and a deck with two operating spots.

Bongodog
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

Anyone who thinks that wide open holds are a great way to store large numbers of items of differing sizes has never worked in a stores environment, yes they are inexpensive, but hideously slow, inefficient and liable to cause damage. You want to be able to access as much as possible for the least effort, not to be moving 20 pallets to get to the one you want, especially in a rough sea.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

https://www.bohfpusystems.com/

expeditionary logistics.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Bongodog wrote:Anyone who thinks that wide open holds are a great way to store large numbers of items of differing sizes has never worked in a stores environment, yes they are inexpensive, but hideously slow, inefficient and liable to cause damage. You want to be able to access as much as possible for the least effort, not to be moving 20 pallets to get to the one you want, especially in a rough sea.
I would say if you have to move 20 pallets to get to the one you want you are piss poor at your job and you need to retrain. We need to get the most out of these ships and yes there primary role is the CSG however they will need to able to support the LRG and disaster relief ops as well. I am not saying they need well docks or a steel beach but they should have good helicopter support and the ability to carry say 30 vehicles if needed

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:a steel beach
Even the Points have a steel beach
Tempest414 wrote:they should have good helicopter support and the ability to carry say 30 vehicles if needed
If you have 4 larg-ish helicopters and two spots for them... that should make for 30 Landies or Hi-Luxes (In the alternative use)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Even the Points have a steel beach
No they don't they use their RoRo ramps lowered on to a mexeflote as a make shift steel beach

Also as seen above in SW1's post any vehicle deck / multi mission space can be rack out

Also if a SSS was to be used for disaster relief it would need its hangar and flight deck for heli op's and a vehicle deck so for now I can't see any reason why the new SSS should not have a multi mission / vehicle deck

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Even the Points have a steel beach



No they don't they use their RoRo ramps lowered on to a mexeflote as a make shift steel beach
If the same things can be made to happen, what is the difference between a make-shift and a 'real' one?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

As I have said in the past I am more than happy for the SSS to have a rear ramp that can be lowered on to a mexeflote from a vehicle deck my point up thread was it would not need a well dock or fixed steel beach

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:it would not need a well dock or fixed steel beach
... looks like we are in 'violent agreement' :clap: :clap:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Timmymagic »

shark bait wrote:I think it probably comes from the air weapons stores on the carriers, which is very complicated. (below)
FYI - That pic is of the Type 23's Magazine Torpedo Launch System, which has recently been upgraded, not the QE Class HMWS.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Not my area of interest/ expertise, but as for how the RN navy ships 'used to be' we can go back to the Falklands: the TF had to sail in a hurry, so some ships were carrying the nukes (depth charges are known of, as a category)
- in the midst of everything else, great effort went into getting them into the 'deep mags' of the supply ships, as opposed to staying on carriers/ frigates much exposed as targets for Exocet or other types of hits
They were in fact WE.177A bombs which could be used as Depth Charges or normal gravity bombs by changing the fusing mechanism. They didn't remove them from the carriers as their magazines were better protected than any other ships. The main reason for removing them from frigates/destroyers was so that they didn/t breach the Treaty of Tlatelolco when they entered Falklands waters (i.e. 12 mile limit). This was quite fortunate as 2 of the ships that had bombs aboard were Sheffield and Coventry...

Towards the end of the war the bombs were concentrated on 2 RFA's, Fort Austin and Resource, and arrived back in the UK in late June/early July. There has previously been claims that an RFA returning back to the UK to restore took them back earlier but that isnt the case.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:Towards the end of the war the bombs were concentrated on 2 RFA's, Fort Austin and Resource
Wasn't aware of the exact steps, except that the 'deep mags' on RFAs were mentioned
... and the current discussion seems to head towards a big open 'garage'. That would be a Point, btw, so would not think this hassle we are going thru would be worthwhile if things were so simple.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
shark bait wrote:I think it probably comes from the air weapons stores on the carriers, which is very complicated. (below)
FYI - That pic is of the Type 23's Magazine Torpedo Launch System, which has recently been upgraded, not the QE Class HMWS.
Actually neither ..

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock ... m-testing/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Lord Jim »

Yet the picture is of the Torpedo handling system unless Sea Ceptor has a propeller/propulsor and fins at its far end! :)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Yet the picture is of the Torpedo handling system unless Sea Ceptor has a propeller/propulsor and fins at its far end! :)
I think you'll find that Stingrays are an air launched weapon :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yet the picture is of the Torpedo handling system unless Sea Ceptor has a propeller/propulsor and fins at its far end! :)
I think you'll find that Stingrays are an air launched weapon :D
Not on Norway's frigates, though
- where is the photo actually from?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yet the picture is of the Torpedo handling system unless Sea Ceptor has a propeller/propulsor and fins at its far end! :)
I think you'll find that Stingrays are an air launched weapon :D
Not on Norway's frigates, though
- where is the photo actually from?
Once more for those of poor reading comprehension ..

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock ... m-testing/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

An old, but still favourable configuration for the SSS.

A bunch of these could deliver the SSS and LSS in one package.

Image
Image
Image
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply