Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

SW1 wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 19:45 Opportunity for a career in a region of the U.K. where there is jobs but not a lot of careers can be an attractive option.
Yep, I accepted a job in Cornwall when I was young and single and accommodation was being thrown in with the package.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Phil Sayers »

Bongodog wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 19:04 Right next door to Cornwall one of the most deprived Counties with a high proprotion of poorly paid tourist based jobs. Might be easier than you think to recruit staff
Yes and furthermore people in Cornwall where I currently live (and to a slightly lesser extent Devon where I used to live) have a traditional affinity for the sea which might make the opportunity be viewed as more attractive than in some other parts of the country.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

shark bait wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:21 The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?


Seems to indicate not HRAS unfortunately.
These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 2):
Timmymagicdonald_of_tokyo

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by R686 »

RichardIC wrote: 04 Feb 2023, 13:52
shark bait wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:21 The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?


Seems to indicate not HRAS unfortunately.

Yes, bit of a difference in working loads. between 2.5T and 5T

I didn't realise a complete F35 engine was so heavy

Under a £25M contract, Rolls Royce has already developed and built a prototype Heavy Replenishment at Sea rig (HRAS) that will equip the FSS. A test rig was installed and successfully trialled at training establishment HMS Raleigh between 2013-14 and has been left in place as a training aid. Capable of transferring 25 loads per hour weighing up to 5 tonnes, this system promises to be highly efficient, able to supply the carrier at sea quickly. This reduces the window of vulnerability when ships have restricted manoeuvrability as they steam in parallel for RAS. Most importantly HRAS is also capable of transferring a complete Pratt & Witney F135 engine that propels the F-35. The ability to change aircraft engines at sea is an important consideration for extended operations and there is limited space to store such large items on the carrier.


https://www.navylookout.com/fleet-solid ... ning%20aid.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Have they bought any spare f35 engines I’d be amazed if they have any more than about 1 or 2 as spares?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well I guess’s that must be the modus operandi of the RAF then, it certainly is not that of the FAA.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

dmereifield wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
And where does heavy lift UAVs enter the equation?

The payload is up to 700kg now and will keep increasing going forward.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

I read somewhere that it was thought that there was sufficient space to store heavy supplies including engines on the carrier.

Having said that a Chinook can carry up to 10 tonnes of supplies, so whilst HAS would have meant overall supply transfer times would have been shorter, I can’t see a significant gap.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Bongodog
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

dmereifield wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.
These users liked the author Bongodog for the post:
Ron5

G White
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 Jun 2019, 11:06
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by G White »

Are they calling it Heavy RAS as it can carry heavier weights than before but not necessarily the originally specified "Heavy RAS" weights?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by dmereifield »

Bongodog wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 13:29
dmereifield wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.
OK, fair enough, a nice to have but not essential. The RN have decided the investment was not worth it
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Bongodog
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

dmereifield wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 16:15
Bongodog wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 13:29
dmereifield wrote: 05 Feb 2023, 08:23 Do they have such a large supply of spares that a heavy RAS is needed? How many spares can they store on the carrier? If they get through those, can't extras be delivered via helicopter?
Its everything required to keep a mobile airfield with 1600 personnel operational, the heavier each individual RAS load can be the shorter time two large ships are in close proximity, also the cost per pallet of RAS by line between ships is a fraction of the cost of doing so by helicopter.
OK, fair enough, a nice to have but not essential. The RN have decided the investment was not worth it
Not sure what the RAS weight limit is for Fort Victoria, but would guess its rather less than 2.5 tonnes from looking at RAS's on videos, so it will be a significant improvement, I recall seeing somewhere that the only reason for going to 5 tonnes was for the capability of lifting an F35 engine, it was probably felt that it wasn't worth the extra money for a rarely used capability

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 4):
Phil Sayerswargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyojedibeeftrix

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 »

'No portholes because they cost too much' says so much about the shit show of an MOD we have!
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
Jensy
@LandSharkUK

Bongodog
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

shark bait wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 10:42 'No portholes because they cost too much' says so much about the shit show of an MOD we have!
As a blank wall will be in place surely its the classic RN "Fitted for but not with"
These users liked the author Bongodog for the post:
shark bait

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-cur ... y-vessels/

  • RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
  • RFA Wave Class Tanker – 2 not available, 0 available, 2 total
  • RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
  • RFA Amphibious Support Ship – 0 not available, 1 available, 1 total
  • RFA Fort Class Multi-Purpose Auxiliary – 0 not available, 1 available, 1 total

Total of 8 vessels available, each with typically 120-140 RFA crew.

A small number of core-crew will be also onboard the MROSS(1) and MHC-OSV.

Then, what if 3 FSSS comes in? I guess, our "hope" is,
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – disbanded
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – disbanded
- RFA FSSS – 1 not available, 2 available, 3 total

Note that I was forced to disband RFA Argus here, to provide crew for the 2nd FSSS. 3rd FSSS cannot be manned, and shall be "rotated" in extended readiness/long-maintenance.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 10 May 2023, 14:36 Total of 8 vessels available, each with typically 120-140 RFA crew.

A small number of core-crew will be also onboard the MROSS(1) and MHC-OSV.

Then, what if 3 FSSS comes in? I guess, our "hope" is,
- RFA Tide Class Tanker – 1 not available, 3 available, 4 total
- RFA Wave Class Tanker – disbanded
- RFA Landing Ship Docks – 0 not available, 3 available, 3 total
- RFA Amphibious Support Ship – disbanded
- RFA FSSS – 1 not available, 2 available, 3 total

Note that I was forced to disband RFA Argus here, to provide crew for the 2nd FSSS. 3rd FSSS cannot be manned, and shall be "rotated" in extended readiness/long-maintenance.
What about the 3 LSVs and 6 MRSS?

The current headcount simply isn’t sustainable with RN transferring all of the MCM and Amphibious vessels to the RFA within the next decade.

RN and RFA need to make the most of what is in the water now.

Asking for more funding to build more classes of vessels isn’t likely to looked upon favourably with 50% of current vessels routinely tied up.

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 May 2023, 15:27What about the 3 LSVs and 6 MRSS?
Good point. I guess
- 3 LSVs are RN-manned. (because it will be sent to frontline)
- 6 MRSS? Don't worry !! It is "up to 6" MRSS. :D
Actually, I think 2 MRSS will be replacing 1+1 LPDs, and 3 MRSS will be replacing 3 Bays. 5 vessels out of "up to 6" is not bad, I think.

The current headcount simply isn’t sustainable with RN transferring all of the MCM and Amphibious vessels to the RFA within the next decade.
RN and RFA need to make the most of what is in the water now.
Asking for more funding to build more classes of vessels isn’t likely to looked upon favourably with 50% of current vessels routinely tied up.
Exactly. Similarly, for RN escort numbers, surely the "available escort numbers" will improve, significantly, by just introducing 5 T31 and 8 T26. No doubt. We will see more escorts steaming around the world, even without T32. No problem.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.



Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.

Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Ron5

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote: 28 Jun 2023, 11:39 A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.



Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.

Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
The result of little interest in support and enabling assets over many decades when the rent comes due!
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Jensy

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jensy »

Indeed. Not sexy enough for Westminster, or even Whitehall for that matter.

Going to be interesting trying to regularly deploy a carrier further afield than the Med or GIUK Gap for the next eight years.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
serge750

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Jensy wrote: 28 Jun 2023, 12:09 Indeed. Not sexy enough for Westminster, or even Whitehall for that matter.

Going to be interesting trying to regularly deploy a carrier further afield than the Med or GIUK Gap for the next eight years.
Or the senior echelons in the military.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Jensy

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

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jensy wrote: 28 Jun 2023, 11:39 A three year slip past the 2028 ISD, with all vessels now to enter service in a 24 month period.... Getting crews sorted is going to be 'interesting'.



Also, a reminder: the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS), of which FSSS was a part, entered main gate in 2005 and was planned to deliver solid support ships (curiously only two) in 2017 and 2020 respectively. This was in addition to six fleet tankers and three joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) vessels.

Can't help but wonder if one of the ships is going to get binned at some point.
In service date and deliver to RN date differs.

I read that the 1st FSSS will be delivered to RN on 2029, with acceptance and first of class trial needing 2 years, so 2031?

2nd FSSS delivery on early 2030 and 3rd one on late 2030.

On the crew. there will be no crew for, at least, the 3rd hull, without putting some Tides in extended readiness. Here I assume the 2nd hull’s crew comes from disbanding Argus.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Jun 2023, 12:31 Here I assume the 2nd hull’s crew comes from disbanding Argus.
If the RFA headcount issues can’t be resolved by 2032 they never will be.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
new guyserge750

Post Reply