UK Defence Forum

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 ?

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.

Welcome Bongodog!

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

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)



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;



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.

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

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.

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.

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.

https://www.bohfpusystems.com/

expeditionary logistics.

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

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)

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

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?

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

Tempest414 wrote:it would not need a well dock or fixed steel beach

... looks like we are in 'violent agreement'

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

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

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

Not on Norway's frigates, though
- where is the photo actually from?

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

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/

An old, but still favourable configuration for the SSS.

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