UK Defence Forum

Repulse wrote: ↑25 Jun 2022, 17:28 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-look ... -lift-uav/

Perhaps we should be building our Future Solid Supply Ships with flat-tops…

So when we talked about making the MRSS a flat top you were against it now you want to make the SSS a flat top.

I still like the idea of making the MRSS into a 200 x 30 meter flat top as it is its job to support troops both in getting over the Horizon and then backing them up these would not be LHD's as there would be no dedicated hangar just a lift to the lower deck

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2022, 11:10 So when we talked about making the MRSS a flat top you were against it now you want to make the SSS a flat top.

I still like the idea of making the MRSS into a 200 x 30 meter flat top as it is its job to support troops both in getting over the Horizon and then backing them up these would not be LHD's as there would be no dedicated hangar just a lift to the lower deck

In short yes I would distinguish the two, though if the RN went back to the original MARS scope and were again looking at Joint Sea-Based Logistic ships, I would support them being flat-tops. In fact having 2 JSBLs (one at the core of each LRG) would IMO solve a number of gaps, including RFA Argus’s decommissioning.

The problem of the MRSS and any idea of LHDs is that we end up again focusing on a small number of larger vessels. Also, we are combining too many roles into one platform - making it sub optimal for them all.

The UK will never do an amphibious assault like D-Day without years of ramping up. What is needed is a fleet of more numerous and smaller / cheaper ships capable of operating close to shore with air and logistical support OTH.

But we will never have loads of small ships as they will be cut and cut and cut

Plus also the SSS need to be dedicated to resupply of the CSG and with all current thinking in the MOD has the MRSS at 200 x 30 size ships and if this remains the case then making them a 200 x 30 flat top like the JMSDF Osumi class will go along way to ticking a lot of boxes

I agree the FSSs are for the two carriers. Having them flat-top would allow them to be resupplied from land also for critical kit. I must admit also though the comment I originally made was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and it shouldn’t be at the top of the priority list.

However (and this is the wrong thread), having two JSBLs, or let’s call them SHDs (Support Helicopter Docks) if it makes it clearer has a lot of merit (and cheaper than LHDs).

As we’ve debated elsewhere, to avoid fragile eggs in a small number of fragile baskets operating unnecessarily in high risk areas, having more a fleet of smaller / more numerous ships is the only way. What’s more, they can be afforded with a good drumbeat, perhaps making them the only platform that the RN could possibly build in any volume in any realistic war timeframe.

Commons written answers 30th June 2022 :-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-23/23720

From today's Defence Select Committee session with Ben Wallace:

- The budget for three FSSS: £1,617M

- Final bids in for the end of July 2022

- Contract given by the end of Q1 2023

- RFA Fort Victoria to serve till the end of 2028 (not expected to need a further full refit)

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... ab44b04d71

Jensy wrote: ↑05 Jul 2022, 15:28

- RFA Fort Victoria to serve till the end of 2028 (not expected to need a further full refit)

Fort Vic is alongside now for upkeep and the RAdm didn't deny any further refits would be needed just that he could cover the requirements i.e. Fort Vics refits will be sync'd with those of the QECs and future deployments.

Repulse wrote: ↑26 Jun 2022, 15:02 In short yes I would distinguish the two, though if the RN went back to the original MARS scope and were again looking at Joint Sea-Based Logistic ships, I would support them being flat-tops. In fact having 2 JSBLs (one at the core of each LRG) would IMO solve a number of gaps, including RFA Argus’s decommissioning.

What sort of ships would the JSBLs been? What capabilities were they to have provided? I've tried googling, but not found anything of detail.

Thanks

navynewbie wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 22:51
What sort of ships would the JSBLs been? What capabilities were they to have provided? I've tried googling, but not found anything of detail.

Thanks

The best overview of the JSBL requirement I’ve seen is in Nick Childs book Britain’s Future Navy, pages 132-133.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ApH ... bl&f=false

Harland & Wolff inclusion in Team UK is a nice little touch.

That's one of the worst CGI image I have seen for while.

So they are basically a build from new RFA Argus. Take on RORO train ferry, remove the train and vehicle decks replace with dry stores and RAS gear.

PS Its an ugly blighter a look of HHGTTG 1981 Marvin the Paranoid Android.

No MK41 VLS?

And where's the 5" gun?

Remember it is an RFA not a RN warship. It only is the latter when it comes to how and where it is built and fitted out, or at least that was the revised plan.

Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars

A bit wider and nearly 20m longer than RFA Fort Victoria

For me the thing that stands out is the lack of a full width hangar and a second spot for operating up to 4 helicopter plus I would ditch the Phalanx and fit 4 x 40mm

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑05 Aug 2022, 02:54 Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars

A bit off topic if the ferries design are picked for the FSS, the ferries spec looks like it can be a good LPD for the RN, Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LPD.

SomeoneAh wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 02:28

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑05 Aug 2022, 02:54 Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length 220m
Beam 30.8m
Gross Tonnage 50,000 T
Max Draught 7m
Service Speed 20 Knots
Passenger Capacity 1910 People
Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars

A bit off topic if the ferries design are picked for the FSS, the ferries spec looks like it can be a good LPD for the RN, Passenger Capacity 1910 People Total Freight Capacity 42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity 652 Cars is more than enough for a LPD.

I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability

R686 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 04:12 I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability

Not only the Point class, but IMO part of the troop transport role covered by the Bay Class.

It depends what you mean by troop transport role. Every study ever done shows keeping troops embarked on a ship reduces there fighting capability quite quickly. The way you get troops anywhere is to fly them in the a330s you transport there equipment by sea and marry up the to at a port.

Repulse wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 08:14

R686 wrote: ↑06 Aug 2022, 04:12 I was actually thinking of a replacement of the Point-class sealift ship with combined troop sealift capability

Not only the Point class, but IMO part of the troop transport role covered by the Bay Class.

Yep that would be good say 4 ships and then Albion's & Bay replaced with JC1/CBR LHD and let the QE's be what they were designed for