Future Solid Support Ship

[RichardIC]

The March/April edition of Warship World has a feature on FSS.

To be honest there isn't a huge amount in it.

It claims that the HRAS rig at HMS Raleigh has completed trials transferring 25 five-tonne loads per hour for a period of five hours (25 per hour, really?). And FSS are supposed to have two of the things.... And the Raleigh rig has been de-rated to 5 tonnes - the operational requirement is for 6 tonne loads. So that's a theoretical capacity to transfer (6x25x5x2) 1,500 tonnes a pop.

Goodness knows how that compares to the current Forts but would love to know.

Probably the only other gem is that MoD consider the FSS to be non-complex/non-warlike (like MARS tankers) and therefore under current regulations construction would have to be opened up to international tender. However it does add that there would likely be classified elements that would be reserved for completion in the UK. Again not sure how authoratitive that is - I wouldn't regard it as definitive.

[S M H]

The elephant in the room that causes the R.F.A. the most problems is the pay rates paid to the crews in comparison to the U.K.crewed merchant marine / off shore industry.The exit of U.K. crewed vessels and reflagging by shipping companies has caused the demise of trained personnel . The merchant crews have been replaced by cheaper crews from abroad depressing wages (My experience) . This has major implications as trained experienced maritime personnel are lured away to other jobs that offer better pay and conditions. Due to the lack of strategic merchant marine planning in the proceeding twenty years and the small merchant marine personnel.
We could address the manning problem by R.F.A. sponsored training. Possibly the funding of ex naval personnel to D.T.I, class qualifications with a pre agreed contract .Then paying them pay and conditions that aide retention. This would fully crew the R.F.A. vessels we have . The Treasury would prefer the merchant contractor providing eg S. D . Victoria provision of R.F.A. assist. As ending a contract has less political ramifications than cutting R.F.As This requires more funning for the R.F.A. which has implications on other parts of defence spending.

[Gabriele]

The March/April edition of Warship World has a feature on FSS.

To be honest there isn't a huge amount in it.

It claims that the HRAS rig at HMS Raleigh has completed trials transferring 25 five-tonne loads per hour for a period of five hours (25 per hour, really?). And FSS are supposed to have two of the things.... And the Raleigh rig has been de-rated to 5 tonnes - the operational requirement is for 6 tonne loads. So that's a theoretical capacity to transfer (6x25x5x2) 1,500 tonnes a pop.

Goodness knows how that compares to the current Forts but would love to know.

Probably the only other gem is that MoD consider the FSS to be non-complex/non-warlike (like MARS tankers) and therefore under current regulations construction would have to be opened up to international tender. However it does add that there would likely be classified elements that would be reserved for completion in the UK. Again not sure how authoratitive that is - I wouldn't regard it as definitive.

It seems about right. The Raleigh system was trialed with 5 tons, big-size loads and should now have been de-rated to 2.5 tons, which is, if i recall right, the current RAS value. The system now serves as a land-based training installation for RAS, so they have debuffed it to replicate what is currently in use.

It seems to be assumed that only the carriers will be "customers" of the Heavy RAS stations. Both will be on the port side, positioned so to face the aircraft lifts openings in the hull of the carriers. The stores will be embarked through those. The 5 ton, 5-meter pallets enable the transfer of loads such as replacement F-135 engines for the F-35 and pallets of weaponry for the air wing. Note that 5-ton, 5-meter pallets are perfectly compatible with the HMWHS elevators and moles, so once the pallets come across they only have to be put on the elevators and they can be quickly stored down in the deep magazines of the carrier.

On the starboard side, there will almost certainly be another RAS station, but of the old type, meant for resupplying escorts.

The Tide tankers are built the other way around, with two rigs starboard and one port, as they are meant to come on the carrier's other side to link up to the two main fuel receiving stations.

[jonas]

The elephant in the room that causes the R.F.A. the most problems is the pay rates paid to the crews in comparison to the U.K.crewed merchant marine / off shore industry.The exit of U.K. crewed vessels and reflagging by shipping companies has caused the demise of trained personnel . The merchant crews have been replaced by cheaper crews from abroad depressing wages (My experience) . This has major implications as trained experienced maritime personnel are lured away to other jobs that offer better pay and conditions. Due to the lack of strategic merchant marine planning in the proceeding twenty years and the small merchant marine personnel.
We could address the manning problem by R.F.A. sponsored training. Possibly the funding of ex naval personnel to D.T.I, class qualifications with a pre agreed contract .Then paying them pay and conditions that aide retention. This would fully crew the R.F.A. vessels we have . The Treasury would prefer the merchant contractor providing eg S. D . Victoria provision of R.F.A. assist. As ending a contract has less political ramifications than cutting R.F.As This requires more funning for the R.F.A. which has implications on other parts of defence spending.

I must admit to being out of date in this area, so how have things got so bad. When I served in the RFA the rates of pay were exactly the same as the Merchant Navy, the overtime that had to be worked due to the demands of the RN was seemingly endless, and the terms that had been secured by the unions was in my experience excellent. The money that was being earned was for that time very,very, good.
Even overtime in port was 3hrs per day, and believe me we never worked it. Anything worked at see over 8 hrs was automatically time and a half, and any hours worked more than 12hrs in 24hrs counted as 'loss of sleep' meaning double time.

I know that since if left new terms and conditions have been accepted, but can it be that bad. Bearing in mind that the offshore industry is losing jobs hand over fist.

[shark bait]

The new rig is a very capable beast, and the construction of the new solid support ship will allow the Royal Navy to operate the carriers with maximum efficiency. Another great innovation that will allow us to operate 2 super carriers very affordably on our budgets. The stores ships are the last piece in the puzzle for the carriers and the design needs to be focused on filling the large logistical footprint of the carriers as efficiently as possible.

RE parts to be fitted out in the UK; do we think the stores ships will have a derivative of the HMWHS on board? Built in Korea, fitted out with HRAS and HMWHS in he UK?

It would make a lot of sense and enable the stores ships to have much leaner crews than a conventional replenishment vessel, which the RFA definitely needs. That would make a beautiful system, straight out of one store, over the line and straight into another. The systems are common so the fittings are there for it to be accepted straight into either system all highly automated.

Efficiency in logistics, a beautiful way to make savings without reducing capability.

The RFA does have a problem with man power that can only be solved by higher wages. They are competing with the private offshore industry and their big pay slips. Offshore UK is slowing down which may relieve some pressure, but these are global jobs by nature, and global demand for an offshore workforce is still strong. With news of shortages of engineers in the RFA I took a little look and found I do better sat in an office going home every day and having every weekend off, there is little incentive to sign up. At least private offshore the wages are high and the time off is generous.

[shark bait]

continuing from the FLF thread...

My money's on the Solid Support Ship being built in the UK. It's likely that the Tides could've been had there been the capacity and a UK bid. Unlike the Tides which are, to be honest, a militarised variation of a common tanker design built by SK all the time, the SSS could include aspects that would make building abroad less attractive. Make no mistake these probably aren't just going to be big empty cargo haulers. Some designs floating around have included well docks similar to the Bays.

My view is that the SSS can and should be block built around the UK, using some of the capacity freed up post-CVF, and assembled at the BAE dry dock in Rosyth. It'd help close the gap between the QEs and the Albion LPD replacement and sustain some of that capacity. Even if we pay over the odds for the SSS, it'll reduce costs further down the line by sustaining capital ship construction capacity. Throw in replacements for Argus and Diligence, be they extensively converted merchantmen or new builds, and you've got work to see you through to the LPD replacement.

There have indeed been some rather ambitious renders floating about, including a well dock, but I would imagine that is a step too far now and to be honest I hope they don't go with a well dock. At the end of the day these need to be beasts at sustaining a carrier group globally, I don't think a well dock will help that mission, in fact it would be detrimental to the cause.

I agree these are unlikely to be just another cargo ship, and will no doubt have some additional roles. It was over 5 years ago now, but once upon a time the government committed to building these ships in the UK, on the basis the design was more complex and more sensitive than the tides. However that was a long time and the program has changed many times so I suspect that commitment has now been dropped.

Built in Korea, fitted out in the UK would be a totally reasonable model to follow again, and would no doubt deliver value to the RFA.

Likewise sustain Rosyth could be a totally reasonable model to follow if it is part of some wider strategy. Ships can be around 30% more expensive when build domestically and still be cheaper than an outsourced production because of returns back to the government through taxes and local economical development. If the ship building strategy really going to care about sustaining industry and delivering value to the tax payer, I would expect it to commit to building the SSS at Rosyth, and then leading into LPD replacement which would of course be cheaper using as established production and logistics chain.

It would be extremely nice if Rosyth could be kept going for the LPD replacements, there are clear synergies between than and the carriers and it would be the most efficient way of building them. We must have a large skilled workforce up there by now that would be perfect for an LHD.

Total all that up and the Rosyth bid could be around 40% more than the Koreans and still make more financial sense. When the bigger picture is considered the UK option starts to look a lot more competitive.

My hope is both the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and Hyundai Heavy Industries make a bid and the best option wins and it would of course be excellent if the UK option wins.

[marktigger]

would agree that the LPD replacements should be LHD's .

Given some of the deployments that the RFA covers both as plastic frigates and supporting things like WIGS, the Falkland Islands Guard ships and Anti piracy ops there is a need for Large Multi commodity AOR's going back to the concept of the Fort Victoria class. As well as some Solid Support ships However we are almost 1:1 between RFA's and Surface escorts. Which says an awful lot!

[shark bait]

Why do any of those tasks need a Large Multi commodity AOR?

We are not moving away from that approach by accident, we are moving away because it is less efficient. Improving logistics is a great way to make savings without loosing capability. It is great investments in our auxiliary fleet is not being missed as it is a critical part to delivering a global carrier strike force, and doing it as efficiently as possible is very important. I think we're doing a good job in in that respect.

[marktigger]

should the FSSS revert to one of the concepts of the Fort Victoria class and be fitted with CAMM and Artisan radar? along with the Mk 41 VLS? so they can contribute to protection of the group.

[Engaging Strategy]

should the FSSS revert to one of the concepts of the Fort Victoria class and be fitted with CAMM and Artisan radar? along with the Mk 41 VLS? so they can contribute to protection of the group.

No. With complex radar systems and weapons fitted you'd need lots of RN personnel aboard to man and maintain them, along with Ops room battlespace management equipment like a frigate. Honestly I don't think it'd be worth it. In a high-threat environment the SSS will be at the core of the CVBG/ARG and protected by the same layered defences that cover the carrier itself. If the combined defensive capabilities of F35 CAP, a pair of Type 45s and CAMM armed frigates can't kill whatever gets chucked at the group I highly doubt a few CAMM missiles aboard the SSS will make much difference. It'd also be rather expensive.

[shark bait]

When everything else has CAMM on it whats the point? Big efficient stores ships are needed.

The idea got scrapped last time for a reason .

[Opinion3]

Engaging Strategy

But imagine the MARS SSS replaced a T45 with the capabilities offered by a T45 on top of the Joint Logistics Solid Support Ship....... As you have pointed out fitting a Sampson radar set and Mk41, Aster missiles would not be cheap but it would make a very capable (indeed better than a T45) AAW. Now offer BMD and it starts sounding a very interesting option.

How do we pay for these? Lose some T31 GPs. The mast is higher, the SSS travels with the fleet, it protects the fleet. I like the idea....

[Engaging Strategy]

But imagine the MARS SSS replaced a T45 with the capabilities offered by a T45 on top of the Joint Logistics Solid Support Ship.......

Mast height, Sampson and PAAMS/Aster aren't the be all and end all of a Type 45. High design speed, quiet machinery, construction to military standards, RN crew. All these things add cost. What you're proposing would be similar in scale (and cost) to one of the USN's San Antonio Class LPDs. Very large, manpower heavy and very expensive. All of the things the RN cannot afford its supply ships to be.

As you have pointed out fitting a Sampson radar set and Mk41, Aster missiles would not be cheap but it would make a very capable (indeed better than a T45) AAW. Now offer BMD and it starts sounding a very interesting option.

How would it be more capable than a Type 45? It'd be slower, noisy, have an odd mixed RFA/RN crew and presumably be built to commercial standards in order to even be affordable in the first place.

[Opinion3]

It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be like the San Antonio class, and the mast height and BMD would make it better than a T45. It needs to keep with with fleet speed but need not be fast.

I certainly wasn't proposing it was built to commercial standards and staffed by the RFA. This would be a warship. I am not sure I see an issue with it being noisy, it is hardly going to give the fleet away next to a stonking great big carrier. It would a a fleet escort and would fulfill an escort and replenishment role at the same time.

[marktigger]

given we are exposing the RFA's as "plastic" frigates maybe we need to seriously look how the are being defensivly armed

[Engaging Strategy]

It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be like the San Antonio class, and the mast height and BMD would make it better than a T45. It needs to keep with with fleet speed but need not be fast.

You're likely talking ~£2-3bn apiece for something like that. So you're going to end up with half as many first rate AAW escorts. Factor in the ratio of three ships to provide one forward deployed and you've got, er... one, frankly that's nowhere near good enough.

I certainly wasn't proposing it was built to commercial standards and staffed by the RFA. This would be a warship.

Then what's the point? It's going to be expensive to buy and run, RN crewing standards would make such ships very manpower heavy, something we can't afford with our current shortage of naval personnel. Why bother mixing what you really want (a Ticonderoga-like task group AAW escort) with a pretty simple stores ship?

I am not sure I see an issue with it being noisy, it is hardly going to give the fleet away next to a stonking great big carrier. It would a a fleet escort and would fulfil an escort and replenishment role at the same time.

Why mix these roles? The concept was toyed with in the 80s with the Type 23/Fort Victoria concept but binned in light of combat experience in the Falklands. Why resurrect it now?

[Caribbean]

Re: The SSS - I can see the advantage of giving them some serious self-defense, if only to allow them to move around unescorted as much as possible. The early mock-ups seem to indicate 2 or 3 Phalanx (probably ffbnw, plus presumably some 30mm and smaller guns) - I could see decoys (since soft-kill seems much more effective than hard-kill) and possibly a modest number of CAMM being added for a large-scale operation (either ffbnw or as containerised "CAMM in a can"), along with Artisan (which seems to be becoming something of a large ship standard for the RN/RFA), but I think Asters, Sampson and BMD is completely unrealistic.

[marktigger]

Re: The SSS - I can see the advantage of giving them some serious self-defense, if only to allow them to move around unescorted as much as possible. The early mock-ups seem to indicate 2 or 3 Phalanx (probably ffbnw, plus presumably some 30mm and smaller guns) - I could see decoys (since soft-kill seems much more effective than hard-kill) and possibly a modest number of CAMM being added for a large-scale operation (either ffbnw or as containerised "CAMM in a can"), along with Artisan (which seems to be becoming something of a large ship standard for the RN/RFA), but I think Asters, Sampson and BMD is completely unrealistic.

CAMM would be a good option possibly LMM on a proper mounting either on the DS30 or a proper Naval multilauncher (Shorts/Thales did design these). Not land multi launcher bolted to the deck as was used with Javelin, S15 and HVM

[Engaging Strategy]

Re: The SSS - I can see the advantage of giving them some serious self-defense, if only to allow them to move around unescorted as much as possible. The early mock-ups seem to indicate 2 or 3 Phalanx (probably ffbnw, plus presumably some 30mm and smaller guns) - I could see decoys (since soft-kill seems much more effective than hard-kill) and possibly a modest number of CAMM being added for a large-scale operation (either ffbnw or as containerised "CAMM in a can"), along with Artisan (which seems to be becoming something of a large ship standard for the RN/RFA), but I think Asters, Sampson and BMD is completely unrealistic.

CAMM would be a good option possibly LMM on a proper mounting either on the DS30 or a proper Naval multilauncher (Shorts/Thales did design these). Not land multi launcher bolted to the deck as was used with Javelin, S15 and HVM

Fitted for but not with CAMM would probably be as far as I'd be comfortable taking the idea. We ideally want four SSS and adding v/costly weapons systems and sensors is only going to drag us further from the prospect of that happening.

[marktigger]

is there any point in fitting for but not with if there is no intention to hold reserves of the kit that can be fitted? same goes for phalanx. DS30 etc we need to actually start holding sufficient WMR to make the fitted for but not with concept credible!


But the Just in time supply worked so well and was so cost effective for tellic!

[Engaging Strategy]

is there any point in fitting for but not with if there is no intention to hold reserves of the kit that can be fitted? same goes for phalanx. DS30 etc we need to actually start holding sufficient WMR to make the fitted for but not with concept credible!

I agree the concept is mostly a bollocks excuse for under-arming proper warships, small arms/cannon and CIWS are a different story. Seeing as they're pretty much bolt on/plug & play if we really needed to kit out all our auxiliaries with them we could always "emergency loan" a few Phalanx from the USN etc... As for gaps left empty for VLS it should really be treated as more of a space for expansion if we ever deem it necessary, not tailored for any specific system but sized appropriately to accept most conceivable future possibilities. Just look at Type 45 for example, it's space for extra VLS cells could've been used for another block of strike length PAAMS/Aster but is now likely to be used for Mk.41.

But the Just in time supply worked so well and was so cost effective for tellic!

A product of "only as much defence as we can afford after servicing other more politically important budgets" i'm afraid.

[shark bait]

Arming the SSS really should be a non starter. We will soon have 2 huge carrriers, they will be extremely expensive to support and come with a huge logistical footprint.

The only way the Royal Navy can afford to meet its big boy carrier ambitions is to make it the most refined, streamlined operation possible. Leadership are clearly aware of this challenge and thus the high automation, VTOL and massive efficient stores ships.

Efficiency through logistics is such a beautiful way to reduce operational costs without reducing capability. Thats why the RAF is going through a big modernization programme and will soon be the most up to date and the second most capable auxiliary fleet in the world. This is not by mistake, in order to support the carrier and fleet any where in the world, big lean manned ships are needed. The focus needs to be delivering maximum payload, with the minimum resources, a goal the RFA is set to meet shortly.

Starting to put big radars and anti ballistic missions on the SSS will disrupt this finely tuned logistical machine. Supporting the carriers will become more expensive, and the ambition of the Royal Navy will have to be scaled back.

The only way fighty capabilities could be added is through an embarked helicopter, or UAV suitable for launching from the flight deck. Extensive, multi aircraft facilities could be a reasonable addition, BMD just isnt.

[marktigger]

Arming the SSS really should be a non starter. We will soon have 2 huge carrriers, they will be extremely expensive to support and come with a huge logistical footprint.

The only way the Royal Navy can afford to meet its big boy carrier ambitions is to make it the most refined, streamlined operation possible. Leadership are clearly aware of this challenge and thus the high automation, VTOL and massive efficient stores ships.

Efficiency through logistics is such a beautiful way to reduce operational costs without reducing capability. Thats why the RAF is going through a big modernization programme and will soon be the most up to date and the second most capable auxiliary fleet in the world. This is not by mistake, in order to support the carrier and fleet any where in the world, big lean manned ships are needed. The focus needs to be delivering maximum payload, with the minimum resources, a goal the RFA is set to meet shortly.

Starting to put big radars and anti ballistic missions on the SSS will disrupt this finely tuned logistical machine. Supporting the carriers will become more expensive, and the ambition of the Royal Navy will have to be scaled back.

The only way fighty capabilities could be added is through an embarked helicopter, or UAV suitable for launching from the flight deck. Extensive, multi aircraft facilities could be a reasonable addition, BMD just isnt.

ABM? CAMM? all it would need is a recovered Artisan from a type 23 and the CAMM components (More realistic than type 31 getting them in 15-20 years time)

[marktigger]

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/03/3 ... -answered/

[shark bait]

the SSS replacement concept drawing i've seen looks like a redo of the Fort Victoria (which wouldn't be such a bad thing)

Its not too similar, Fort Victoria is a mixed stores ship, the SSS it just dry stores. The renders also show the SSS with a RORO ramp and landing craft, something not featured on Fort Victoria so we can assume there will be significant changes to the inside, giving it a different capability set. The silhouettes do look similar though.