News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Use yellow and white; for overlapping markings?Jensy wrote:Daresay you could change the layout and get landing spots for three smaller medium helicopters.
We have the two Wave class oilers laid up in extended readiness if we need more tankers EOS or elsewhere. We also have five T31 on order so need for more Rivers of batches 2 3 or 4 either.Repulse wrote: ↑28 Apr 2019, 09:27 Currently Ft Victoria looks to have a OSD of 2023/24, but given recent comments on the value of “Oilers” then surely extending the lifespan of this particularly valuable vessel is a no brainer. RFA Argus is 10 years older and has a similar OSD, so a mid 2030s OSD should be possible.
I’d argue, regardless of the number of SSSs that are built for the CSGs (2 or 3), focusing Ft Victoria as a core of a EoS Littoral Task Group would give an asset that would actually allow a different thinking on the T31e, and actually just be a extension on what it has been up to for a number of years.
It already meets a number of the key requirements, including aviation facilities, RM accommodation, medical facilities and stores. I think with some relatively modest investment it could be a good solution: adding Artisan, activating and upgrading the 32 VLS to CAMM, addition of a couple of LCVPs on davits, and additional space for dry stores and light vehicles.
Combined with this I can then see a good fit with the B2 Rivers, who again with modest modifications could then act as Littoral Escorts to the ship. Each capable of hosting RMs and small boats.
Forward basing Ft Victoria and 3 B2 (or B3) Rivers out of Singapore would give a solid low key presence in the area (with a good self defence capability), supporting allies in low level interventions (like another East Timor or South Pacific).
I’d see the budget for this coming out of the T31 budget, leaving the 2 FLSS plans in place and the 2-3 SSSs. The EoS FLSS operating in the lower threat area of the Indian Ocean and East Africa.
Doing this would the make the T31 programme effectively the upgrade of Ft Victoria, the purchase of another T26 plus 4 more modest Sloops derived from the current B2 Rivers.
Currently we only have the one stores ship to cover both carriers. When the 3*FSS are complete and in active service, then we can afford to advance deploy one to support T31's / River B2's in the Indo Pacific.Tempest414 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 09:42 Why comment on a post from almost 4 years ago through today's eyes
I for one think that a naval force of a Bay , Fort Vic + 2 x type 31 with a re-enforced company of RM and 6 helicopters would be a good thing in the Indo-Pacific and if the Bay was replaced by a flattop MRSS down the line even better
This for me is where eventually replacing the Waves with a pair of Karel Doorman’s would work really well.Tempest414 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 09:43 No one would dream of sending Fort Vic off to the Indo- Pacific until the first 2 SSS are in service but once the first 2 SSS are in service then giving fort Vic 1 last refit and sending her off EoS as part of that group would be a good thing
What we are seeing from our allies in the Indo-Pacific is a Frigate and tanker team deployed we have seen from Canada and NZ
I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoSCaribbean wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
The way I see it ending up isdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 13:17 Guys.... Cannot be so optimistic. What I am concerned is the man power. RFA currently mans 9 vessels;
- 1 Argus
- 1 Fort Victoria
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides (I'm afraid maybe 3. But lest "hope" it is 4)
If the 1st FSS comes, and want to keep Fort Vic active, then RFA need to disband one of their vessels. Disbanding Argus ? (or putting one of the Tides into extended readiness. Bays will not be candidates). And if the 2nd FSS comes, RFA need to disband Fort Victoria to man it. What if the 3rd FSS come? Maybe the 3rd FSS will be in extended readiness.
Then, we have a fleet of,
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness
- Argus
OR
- 3 FSSS (1 to replace Argus)
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness
OR
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides
You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriersTempest414 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 13:36I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoSCaribbean wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
As said for me MRSS should be a 200 x 35 meter flattop capable of operating helicopters and long range UAV's like the GA Mojave
I would have agreed with that a few years ago but with the proliferation of long range drones and their importance going forward the traditional ship types will have to change.
I don't want a Mistral or Ocean type ship I want a Osumi / Dokdo mix of ship and it is the ship we need going forward anything else is a cop outSW1 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 14:45You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriersTempest414 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 13:36I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoSCaribbean wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
As said for me MRSS should be a 200 x 35 meter flattop capable of operating helicopters and long range UAV's like the GA Mojave
Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 15:09I would have agreed with that a few years ago but with the proliferation of long range drones and their importance going forward the traditional ship types will have to change.
Current planning will have to catch up with the lightning fast technological advances on the modern battlefield.
Why the Mistrals were so cheap, we need to know. I understand it adopts "merchant ship standard" in many aspects. I understand Mistral is a "LHD version of Bay class", not in the same standard as Albions.BB85 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 20:01 The Mistral ships where less than $500m each and represent huge value for money. The Albion's have spent half their life on extended readiness while the Bayclass are used flat out. When it comes to their replacement they would be better ordering 3 LHDs with hospital facilities for disaster relief as they provide incredible flexibility for humanitarian and military roles.
It is this kind of piss poor thinking that rips through the heart of the MOD and the NavySW1 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2022, 15:16 If you want a to put a great big for sale sign on the carriers go ahead.
We spent a decade building a very flexible amphibious construct centred on a vessel very similar in size HMS ocean. Instead of embracing and doubling down on that we changed tack orphaned the amphibious force and the marines and are now busying running round wondering how it we reconfigure to make something work.
Indeed - another possibility