Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

[tomuk]

Hardly much better...

Basically for the money saved by disposal this decision isn’t worth the negative PR.

Use them or lose them!

It probably just confirms are reduction in readiness the Forts at Birkenhead started out with a skeleton crew and that reduced to a Cammel Laird provided 'nightwatchman' security and very basic maintenance cover as I understand it.

[new guy]

good Value for money IMO.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mothbal ... -per-year/

[shark bait]

Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.

[Poiuytrewq]

Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.

Should crew them and use them.

[RichardIC]

Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.

Should crew them and use them.

Crew them with?

[RichardIC]

Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.

I'd make that a Norwegian style Aegir-18R if possible. Whatever MRSS eventually brings is going to need sustaining and the FSS is carrier focused.

[Tempest414]

Should sell them and get extra Tide on order.

Should crew them and use them.

Crew them with?

As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations

Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.

[Repulse]

Hate to say it, but there isn’t the money / crew to run them, nor the requirement given fewer singleton ship deployments / move to carrier groups. Having them sat there is just a waste of valuable resources.

[SW1]

Hate to say it, but there isn’t the money / crew to run them, nor the requirement given fewer singleton ship deployments / move to carrier groups. Having them sat there is just a waste of valuable resources.

We have 7 singleton deployments in 5 regions at present and they would all of been supported by a tanker in the past mainly the rover class. There is no lack of demand in this area.

[shark bait]

I'd make that a Norwegian style Aegir-18R if possible. Whatever MRSS eventually brings is going to need sustaining and the FSS is carrier focused.

This is a good idea for a tide batch 2, and more valuable than keeping the Waves mothballed untill eventually sold. Better to sell now and move forward!

We have 7 singleton deployments ... There is no lack of demand in this area.

Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS. As for the others, they don't need a tanker following them around, borrowing one from an ally or port visits are examples of good defence engagement.

[SW1]

I'd make that a Norwegian style Aegir-18R if possible. Whatever MRSS eventually brings is going to need sustaining and the FSS is carrier focused.

This is a good idea for a tide batch 2, and more valuable than keeping the Waves mothballed untill eventually sold. Better to sell now and move forward!

We have 7 singleton deployments ... There is no lack of demand in this area.

Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS. As for the others, they don't need a tanker following them around, borrowing one from an ally or port visits are examples of good defence engagement.

Correct on the rivers but they won’t always be rivers.

If they don’t need a tanker why are they borrowing one?

[Repulse]

Absolutely, with the exception of perhaps LRG(S), both of which ships have good range, can’t think of a Singleton currently that needs a Tanker. Also, as @Sharkbait points out OPVs do not need tankers.

[Repulse]

Correct on the rivers but they won’t always be rivers.

There’s a cheaper and easier way to solve that problem.

[Tempest414]

As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations

Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.

Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assets

[shark bait]

The singletons should not be putting much demand on the tanker fleet apart from training in UK waters. It voids the whole concept of a simple and lean manned T31 if it needs a whole other ship to follow it around.

The Royal Navy is transitioning away from standing commitments with singleton gun ships, to a a Carrier Group Navy (and litoral group to a lesser extent). The independent tasks are very much side projects to benefit diplomacy, and 90% of the focus goes on the main event.

[SW1]

Absolutely, with the exception of perhaps LRG(S), both of which ships have good range, can’t think of a Singleton currently that needs a Tanker. Also, as @Sharkbait points out OPVs do not need tankers.

https://www.forces.net/news/rfa-wave-kn ... iddle-east

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ight-dutch

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... er-retires

[Poiuytrewq]

Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS.

100% wrong.

3D94FF90-3DF7-44C5-98B0-4F0BCFCC98DD.jpeg

[SW1]

Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS.

100% wrong.
3D94FF90-3DF7-44C5-98B0-4F0BCFCC98DD.jpeg

Any photos of a river 2 doing it?

And we don’t own the river in that photo it was sold

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations

Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.

Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assets

Sorry, again. Simply lease a Wave to, say, Estonia, and THEY (the 3 nations) themselves form the Baltic-NATO subgroup including the Wave, is what I said. The same output with your proposal. In other words, why you need RN man-power to do it.

RN commanding the ship and providing the engineering support, and the 3 nations providing the junior rates? By disbanding their own assets? That's not the way they like it to be, I guess.

Just imagine, RN is asked to provide crews to fill the USN CVN man-power shortage, in the name of NATO fleet. I'm 100% sure RN will say no.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Can't count the river class here, they don't do RAS.

100% wrong.
3D94FF90-3DF7-44C5-98B0-4F0BCFCC98DD.jpeg

Any photos of a river 2 doing it?

And we don’t own the river in that photo it was sold

Just did some analysis.

HMS Clyde had a "triangular post with two holes" starboard of the 30 mm gun, which I understand used for RAS. We can see two holes around the top, one around the bottom and another two holes on the wall.



Then on HMS Forth, we can find similar "pole" with 3 holes, and another two holes on the wall, at the right edge of this photo.
I guess River B2 can do RAS. At least, designed to be capable of.


[EDIT] I found another one in the port side. A bit forward, but the same architecture.
Are they really the RAS rig? I agree we need some confirmation. But, anyway it is not much different from the RAS rigs used in US FFG-7 class. Oil refuel is the easier part of the RAS.

[Repulse]

Most of this is 2-3 years ago when RFA were being used as Patrol craft before the Rivers came online and the refocus towards carrier group ops. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Tankers cannot be assigned to allied groups, but singleton long range deployments aren’t a big requirement anymore.

[Tempest414]

As I have said before we need to look outside the box maybe we ask the Baltic states to find 320 staff between them the Wave's could then be manned on a 1.5 scale and become NATO Tankers operating from the High North to the East coast of Africa in support of Nato operations

Then, why not simply lease it to them? Nothing is "out of the box" and easy, conventional, and practical.

Its not about leasing it is about 4 countries coming together to operate two much needed NATO assets

Sorry, again. Simply lease a Wave to, say, Estonia, and THEY (the 3 nations) themselves form the Baltic-NATO subgroup including the Wave, is what I said. The same output with your proposal. In other words, why you need RN man-power to do it.

RN commanding the ship and providing the engineering support, and the 3 nations providing the junior rates? By disbanding their own assets? That's not the way they like it to be, I guess.

Just imagine, RN is asked to provide crews to fill the USN CVN man-power shortage, in the name of NATO fleet. I'm 100% sure RN will say no.

No one has said anything about them getting rid of there fleets yes the UK would give engineering support and Command in the early days however there could and should be a proper training and command program that could and would lead to better trained people across there own navies

[SW1]

Most of this is 2-3 years ago when RFA were being used as Patrol craft before the Rivers came online and the refocus towards carrier group ops. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Tankers cannot be assigned to allied groups, but singleton long range deployments aren’t a big requirement anymore.

We currently have 3 escort vessels doing long range singleton deployments arguably 4 if you consider the deployments to the north. In patrol areas previously classed as standing tasks for decades. That’s before you get to the rivers and what will in the next 10 years replace them.

Those links and there are many more showed support to type 23 frigates deployed on Atlantic patrol task south and type 23 and type 45 in the Middle East. They also show a tanker supporting type 23 frigates to the Baltic and arctic north.

We know there has been been a foreign supply vessels supporting nato standing patrol 2 in the med and support the type 45 in the Caribbean this year.

Having fuel/stores ships available to support region of the world are arguably more valuable than committing fighting units to these regions as they are more in demand and fewer in number. But we have not and do not appreciate logistic and support over fighty things.
We would add more value to coalitions it we tied up the bays and manned the waves instead.



The RN has always had a carrier group under whatever name you wish to call it, it’s nothing new regardless of how much PR bull comes out of it championing the current one.

[donald_of_tokyo]

No one has said anything about them getting rid of there fleets yes the UK would give engineering support and Command in the early days however there could and should be a proper training and command program that could and would lead to better trained people across there own navies

No objection. For me, what you are proposing is a lease program with initial training support.