Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Pseudo wrote: Even if it improves our ability to deliver aid in the long term?
Yes. My problem is that even though it will undoubtedly boost the UK's ability to respond to a humanitarian mission, 95% of the time it will be boosting our military strength and that is not the right way to be using aid money in my opinion, it seems very noncompliant. Something that will spend most of its life trucking bombs to an aircraft carrier is not aid.

I think we are far better paying for a military asset out of a military budget, and then renting it for aid missions out of the aid budget.

I have to draw the line at something that has an offensive capability. I could support building a hospital ship out of the aid budget as that is not armed and has no offensive capability.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Dahedd »

I reckon we spend more than enough on foreign aid. Given the amount of aid the forces as involved in dishing out a hospital ship/FSS from the aid Budget seems more than fair.

If the Italians can do it then why can't we?

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by S M H »

Now if our government developed some if clever thinking they could build a extra hull or two but fitted with limited replenishment deck equipment with spaces fitted out as hospital/primary casualty ship. Retaining the helicopter set up, landing craft derricks , fleet communications but devoid of weapons . Funded from the aid budget R.F.A. crewed and possibly painted white with the red cross markings. Providing you can get our political masters to think outside there own departments boxes.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

S M H wrote:Now if our government developed some if clever thinking they could build a extra hull or two but fitted with limited replenishment deck equipment with spaces fitted out as hospital/primary casualty ship. Retaining the helicopter set up, landing craft derricks , fleet communications but devoid of weapons . Funded from the aid budget R.F.A. crewed and possibly painted white with the red cross markings. Providing you can get our political masters to think outside there own departments boxes.
I think that is much closer to being acceptable. Stupidly painting it white with the red cross markings makes a big difference, and is totally something we should have. Without that it is purely a military asset with a very limited scope for delivering foreign aid. For example which of these says foreign aid?

foreign aid?

Image

foreign aid?

Image

For me one ship has a clear purpose that enables war.
The other has a clear purpose of delivering aid.
Dahedd wrote:I reckon we spend more than enough on foreign aid. Given the amount of aid the forces as involved in dishing out a hospital ship/FSS from the aid Budget seems more than fair.
Indeed we do spend plenty there, and I can certainly advocate a hospital ship from that, but a hospital ship is nothing like a FSS by definition. We shouldn't mix them otherwise it is no longer a hospital ship, it would be a primary casualty receiving facility which has a completely different status, which brings me back to the dilemma I have already highlighted.

The aid budget is an easy target for characters in our circle, and the amount fixed to it is disputable, but robbing it to buy military equipment is wrong. We wouldn't rob the NHS budget to build the solid support ship because it also provides medical care.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

3 solid support ships confirmed today.

I was only expecting 2, so I am happy on that part. Unfortunalty there is not other mention of the vessels and not a single mention of the RFA in the doccument which is shocking and worrying!

Now we need some specifics.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Agreed totally - although the fact that they're there at all is a relief.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by bobp »

Section 4.47 mentions the procurement of the three new ships to serve alongside the four new tankers. It doesn't say who will build them hopefully the work will go to a uk yard.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

bobp wrote:Section 4.47 mentions the procurement of the three new ships to serve alongside the four new tankers. It doesn't say who will build them hopefully the work will go to a uk yard.
Didn't spot that section thanks.

Hopefully the UK can compete with Daewoo. The Aircraft carrier alliance could be well suited.
Once upon a time it was confirmed in parliament that they would be built in the UK, however the program has since gone through a name change so that 'promise' may no longer apply. New ship building strategy is on the way, I expect some clarification there.
@LandSharkUK

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by bobp »

Perhaps they can as you say go to the Rosyth shipyard they have the space and expertise.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

arfah wrote:We need a UK yard to bid for them first.
I imagine a couple of places may bid, but I guess they will have difficult competition from the Koreans.

If I where a betting man I would put my 50p on another BMT Daewoo team.
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Ron5 »

shark bait wrote:
arfah wrote:We need a UK yard to bid for them first.
I imagine a couple of places may bid, but I guess they will have difficult competition from the Koreans.

If I where a betting man I would put my 50p on another BMT Daewoo team.
I'll add 500 notes to that. Be daft not too. Save money for the real warships to be built in the UK.

BTW, be thankful for the SNP, without them I suspect the frigate news would have been a shed load worse.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Continue from ocean thread...
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes, agree they are not amphib substitutes, but that should not stop us from putting a steel beach at the back, so that in benign weather stores can be transferred ashore by mexaflotes, if there is no inviting pier in sight.
I thinks that's spot on.

A well dock is a very significant piece of equipment, that the rest of the ship will need to be designed around, it is not right for the SSS which doesn't need to be an amphibious platform. However I would hope that a steel beach and a RORO ramp can be added to a logistics vessel relatively non intrusively, and perhaps allow some support to amphibious operations after the specialist platforms have done their bit.

Judging by the very old renders it appears their maybe is an intention for the platform to have an amphibious support role. I wouldn't be surprised to see a steel beach or RORO ramp, but I fully expect the to be add ons to a true replenishment at sea platform.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Image


looks like Taiwan have a very similar vessel to what we expect our solid support ships to look like. The fast combat support ship Panshih completed this time last year.

Above is the render for ours, below are the photos of theirs. There are some clear similarities in terms of looks. 196 m long and 25.2 m wide and has a full load displacement of 20,000, which is a bit smaller than RFA Fort Victoria so I expect ours will be marginally bigger.

Image
Image
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is only where the RAS stations are located
- may be the price just went down when we can order from Taiwan?
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

Built at a cost of 91 MGBP. Could take a few extra at that price ;)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Honestly, with the yard space soon to be available in the UK with the conclusion of the carrier programme approaching, I'd be surprised if the order didn't go to a British yard. With the tankers you had good arguments for building abroad: no UK bids, Korean experience building AEGIR-type tankers etc...

In my view the Solid Support Ship programme is a very different prospect. It won't be a simple standard design, building abroad only adds to the balance of payments deficit and crucially we need to support our yards with enough work post-QE to sustain the capacity to build the next generation of capital ships in 15-20 years time. There's also the matter of being seen to be supporting shipbuilding jobs in Scotland, a serious political football these days.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

plus if you look at all the roles that are being discussed for these vessels I would suggest none of the 3 would be available to a landing group other than as carrying Food ammunition etc but TBH being able to offload straight onto mexefloat or LCU by from an artificial beach or roro door with pier will speed the offload process as well as the traditional crane stores over the side of the ship and the small loads a helicopter (even a chinook) can carry. But the suggestion they do PCRS and aviation support role as well for 3 vessels is to much. especially as the other 2 would be needed to sustain the Carrier group.
the RFA is as much at a tipping point as the Navy Fort Austin, Fort Rosalie and Fort Victoria need 1:1 replacement as AOR's. But Argus and Diligence will also need 1:1 replacement. Converted STUFT for some of the roles is a good crisis short term solution. Arapaho has been used and found wanting.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Engaging Strategy wrote:...crucially we need to support our yards with enough work post-QE to sustain the capacity to build the next generation of capital ships in 15-20 years time. There's also the matter of being seen to be supporting shipbuilding jobs in Scotland, a serious political football these days.
I am not familier with the support ships replacement programs. Sustaining british ship building will be important. But here, sustaining mean continuous effort = continuous order, but within the limited resouces.

You are going to have 6 fleet tankers (2 Waves and 4 Tides), its done. So, what will come after the 2(3?) Solid Support Ships to be orderd in 2016 (and to be comissioned in early 2020s) ?

And, what you mean by "the next generation of capital ships in 15-20 years time" is 2 Albions and 3 Bays replacement? 5 LPDs (or 2 LHDs and 2 cheap LPDs, as Shark-bait-san suggested) in 2030-2040? (5 ships in 10 years maybe enough).

In between, RN/RFA only have Diligence and Argus replacements, which is unclear to my understanding. Better have them replaced around 2025-2030. 2 ships in 5 years will be OK, but are there any replacement planned?

# May be MHC come in around 2030s as well here?

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Engaging Strategy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:And, what you mean by "the next generation of capital ships in 15-20 years time" is 2 Albions and 3 Bays replacement? 5 LPDs (or 2 LHDs and 2 cheap LPDs, as Shark-bait-san suggested) in 2030-2040? (5 ships in 10 years maybe enough).

In between, RN/RFA only have Diligence and Argus replacements, which is unclear to my understanding. Better have them replaced around 2025-2030. 2 ships in 5 years will be OK, but are there any replacement planned?
My point is that if the UK wants to sustain the ability to build large complex warships and auxiliaries we're going to have to start building everything we can in British yards. We now have a pretty decent rolling programme for constructing OPVs, frigates and (eventually) destroyers at the BAE yard on the Clyde. What's needed is a similar steady long-term plan for a rolling build of capital ships. Why is this so important? In my opinion if we don't support the shipbuilding capacity to build large capital units then the current generation of carriers will be the last the UK ever builds. Shipbuilding capacity isn't something you can just turn on when you need it and turn off when it gets a bit expensive and inconvenient, it's a long term investment in Britain's ability to project useful military power. If this means building a few more ships and spending more money then so be it. When it comes down to it the Royal Navy and expeditionary capabilities are what set Britain apart from the crowd, we cannot afford to lose that.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

given how long Fearless, Intrepid and the Sir class were around for I'd suggest that Bulwark, the Bays and Points will be around for sometime to come.
Fort Austin & Rosalie were built in the 70's and Fort Victoria needs replacing as she breaks international law being single skin tanker. But Argus and Diligence are also old ships I think both are Falklands veterans as well. But we're paying the price for not investing in the fleet consistantly.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ES & Mark,

I agree with all those reasons you are listing (in this SSS case I was just cracking a joke)
-- however, when the cost premium gets to be something like 100% as evidenced in the Antarctic Survey ship just ordered, then you seriously will have to ask whether you would rather have two than one (OK, one survey ship is enough, but for the RN)
- I linked a couple of times the comparison to South Africa who got their v similar Antarctic Survey Ship from STX Finland for half price

Just trying to say that there is no right answer off the shelf, but each case needs to be studied on its merits
- which you did state (with the case for the tankers)
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by marktigger »

The Dutch built the main part of Karel Doorman in Romania and fitted it out in Netherlands, we built the tides in Korea and will fit them out here. the Australians had the hulls of HMAS Canberra built in Spain. So buildin where its cheap isn't a problem and there are yards across the world who can build complex vessels better than we can.
I wonder if the Royal Navy should have come in on the Survey ship program with BAS and got a ship more to their requirements than having to make do with a conversion of a civilian vessel. like they have had to do with Endurance and Protector?

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

The warship building industry is of critical importance to national security and is something we need to maintain, even if it means paying lots for those ships. It now looks like we have stable build programmes for submarines and surface combatant's, which is great, and need to be continued.

There is then the issue of capitol ship building where the outlook is not so good. We have built and excellent facility as Rosyth but sustaining it in the long term is going to be very challenging, especially when these new ships are so few in numbers, and have a 50 year life span.

We could build the auxiliarys there, but that work is unlikely to stretch us out until 2030. Also unlike surface combatant's, building cargo ships is not critical to national security and not worth paying a premium to maintain a native capabilities.

It seems very difficult to maintain that industry, the only possible way is to do what our western European friends do, and subsidise the yards. With subsidies the industry can keep ticking over with commercial or export work to fill in the gaps in your national demand.

Specifically for the solid support ships, it was stated in a parliamentary answer, a long time ago, that the solid support ship would definitely be built in the UK. However the programme was under a different name back then, so k doubt that statement still holds true.

It would be great to see the UK get the SSS work, as long as we don't have to compromise on something else because it gobbles up too many resources, paying the UK premium.

I read a study some where that was discussing the pros and cons of building defence equipment natively. It suggested paying a premium of 50-60% extra could still be a good decision, as a lot of the money is returned to the government through taxes, and then a lot is returned through economic development. So in certain circumstances it may be worth paying the UK premium.

My suggestion, put it out to international tender. If the UK make an offer with 1.5 X the Koreans price, go with them. If not send the work abroad, get fantastic value, and raise the possibility of full argus and diligence replacements.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply