Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Think defence has done quite a bit disaster relief and what’s required by first responders. Generally speaking your wanting to get plant (cranes, diggers, off-road vehicles ect) on to the island to get roads, airports open, communication systems up and survey clear and open ports to allow ships to dock with a need to provide temporary housing in some cases and the experienced people to make it all work.

While a wave can carry a landing craft or a mexefloat (though I would think a mexefloat strapped on the side maybe an issue if the ship tried to RAS another vessel) I’m not sure how you get the vehicles and heavy stores onto the landing craft or mexefloat efficiently.

There is now portable water purification and osmosis systems specifically for disaster relief so the need for large quantities of water is less important and yes fuel and food will be required for the immediate aftermath but this is limited more for your own equipment.

Using your foreign aid budget to help these countries improve critical infrastructure resilience would be far better long term.

I would think if you wanted to make a case for retaining the waves I wouldnt go with the disaster relief role. There over half way thru there life so the cost/benefit for a major re role is diminishing. The case I would go for is more one of support to international allies. Time and again after action lessons learned documents be they with european allied like Libya or balkans operation or further afield in mid and Far East the lack of enablers from any country bar the US is highlighted as being in short supply.

I would suggest saying to the likes of Australia or japan we intend to send a wave tanker to support your operation in your region would go down very well. They’ve got lots of frigates but very few support ships. However saying in the press were sending a frigate is “sexy” sending a tanker no so much. As we have seen for some time now the MoD and services prioritise shinny new toys that shoot things over the logistics and support assets that make the whole thing work so if money is tight I can’t see the RN saying we’ll cut a frigate or destroyer to keep 2 tankers.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new
The Waves could be of use as dedicated HADR resources with minimal modification. In disaster relief you need to get water, shelter, food and fuel in place rapidly. Simply re-purpose the fuel tanks for civilian diesel and petrol in place of marine and aviation fuel (may need some changes to pumping and venting gear and vapour sensors etc, but all industry-standard kit). I suspect that they already carry top-end fire suppression equipment anyway. Replace the 500-drum lubricant storage with fresh water tanks or additional solid stores space (approx. 100m3) and revisit the deck container storage to see if more containers/ and or ramped workboats/ LCVPs/ vehicles could be carried when decks don't have to be kept as clear as needed for RAS operations. Mount the mexeflotes on the sides as with the Bays and add a floating pipeline system for delivering fluids to shore. If you need to improve deck capacity beyond that, say by removing the RAS stations, then it would start to get expensive, true, but the base vessel is still very capable.
the Wave can already hold 380 cubic meters of fresh water and make another 100 cubic meters a day so

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:I would suggest saying to the likes of Australia or japan we intend to send a wave tanker to support your operation in your region would go down very well. They’ve got lots of frigates but very few support ships. However saying in the press were sending a frigate is “sexy” sending a tanker no so much. As we have seen for some time now the MoD and services prioritise shinny new toys that shoot things over the logistics and support assets that make the whole thing work so if money is tight I can’t see the RN saying we’ll cut a frigate or destroyer to keep 2 tankers.
This is one of the points I made up thread so do agree to a point. I feel that both Waves have role we could have one on AP-N for six months replaced by a Bay in hurricane season and other deployed in the Asian-Pacific for the other six months as we say both NATO and this region are lacking fleet tankers

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

SW1 wrote:Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
Very. Cant have carrier's without aviation training.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

shark bait wrote:
SW1 wrote:Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
Very. Cant have carrier's without aviation training.
What kind of aviation training ship do we need? Those for RAN and French navy is just imitating frigate's-flight-deck size. If this is enough, Wave itself is already can be used for aviation training.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

First of all, fate of Wave class must be defined
1: AFTER MDP,
2: also after QECV's air-wing trials have ended.

"1" wil define the fleet size, and F35B air-wing size, which has a big impact in AOR requirement.
"2" will also define the oiler need, because realistic air-wing operation needs to be evaluated (trial is needed).


Secondly, I am not optimistic here, and I guess the conclusion will be, "3 Tides will be always needed at minimum to cover CVTF operations, and +1 to handle long-term refit = 4 Tides needed, with 3 set of crews." In this case, RN can happily sell 2 Waves to, say, Brazil or Chili etc. (If 5 Tankers are needed, 4 Tides + 2 Waves, 1 in long refit is the solution.)

On the other hand, if it turns out to be "4 Tides are always needed", here comes a need for "a back-up tanker" which can be filled with 1 Wave. This "+1" ship will be manned by the rotating crews for 4 Tides (when one Tide is in long-refit, one Wave can be activated).

In this case, how to handle the 2nd Wave will be important. "Small modification to add on-deck cargo space and 2 LCVPs" for APT-N in "non-hurricane season" will be a good idea. Or, extensive modification as Argus replacement can be considered.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Our "7th" tanker is most often forgotten as it has been leased to supply the far flung bases.

The lease has expired and a Wave (if not too big for the role?) could handle this function, while also being a reserve unit for unexpected peak-capacity needs for at-sea replenishment.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

From where the crew is provided in the leased tanker? Also, I’m afraid the crew for Wave is 80 and largely different from the lease tanker = operation cost differs a lot?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Repulse »

We’ve also an “8th” RFA Victoria and would argue one of the most useful given its multi-role and ability to operate a larger number of Helos.

Understand that the RN wanted to move to pure Solid Support Ships, but options could be to replace with Fort II Style AORs (if money allows) or only build two SSSs, and use the crew to man the Waves (in a modified hybrid role) and put any cash towards a better Argus replacement.
”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

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote:As we have seen for some time now the MoD and services prioritise shinny new toys that shoot things over the logistics and support assets that make the whole thing work so if money is tight I can’t see the RN saying we’ll cut a frigate or destroyer to keep 2 tankers.
I agree but we are now at the point were even the 'shinny new toys that shoot thing's' aren't being provided with enough things things that shoot.

I would happily trade two Leanders for two highly capable logistic support ships in an effort to relieve and maximise the Bays. Maybe the Waves would only be a 10 year solution but that would provide enough time to formulate a coherent plan as to what form any future Amphibious fleet would take.
Tempest414 wrote: the Wave can already hold 380 cubic meters of fresh water and make another 100 cubic meters a day so
This would surely be a highly valuable capability in certain HADR situations even if only as a very temporary initial response facility.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:First of all, fate of Wave class must be defined
1: AFTER MDP,
I suspect the sale of the Waves will happen pretty quickly after the details of the MDP is announced if the decision is to wield the axe.
Repulse wrote:...only build two SSSs, and use the crew to man the Waves (in a modified hybrid role) and put any cash towards a better Argus replacement.
That would be an interesting development if that was the outcome.

Only two FSS vessels doesn't seem like enough without the Waves so in that scenario the Waves won't be able to relieve the Bays even if modified for a hybrid role.

Would the best outcome be two converted Waves to LSV role, two FSS vessels and a third FSS modified for Aviation support/training and PCRS? That would seem like a decent outcome if the manning requirements could be met.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:
SW1 wrote:Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
Very. Cant have carrier's without aviation training.
Sorry disagree, aviation training does not equate with landing on a ship with little relavance to what your operating from. With high fidelity flight simulators now a significant amount of basic flying is don’t on them and with so many large decks available to the RN you could use nearly any ship during work up for a few practise landings.

In the role of primary casualties ship is also less revleant, we have a number of large ships now with medical faciities should there be issues at sea. The way it seems to work now is use in threatre assets to stabilise as quickly as possible then airlift to uk pronto.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:As we have seen for some time now the MoD and services prioritise shinny new toys that shoot things over the logistics and support assets that make the whole thing work so if money is tight I can’t see the RN saying we’ll cut a frigate or destroyer to keep 2 tankers.
I agree but we are now at the point were even the 'shinny new toys that shoot thing's' aren't being provided with enough things things that shoot.

This is just the symptom of the MoDs inability to stick to a budget on its programs. It bases all its budgets on fanciful efficency saving that it simply can’t meet then suddenly finds itself sort of money and having to trim delete thing from programs to make end meet. This is how we’re back in a over blown equipment budget again, it never learns it continually orders things it cannot afford and ends up with force structures it cannot afford to operate.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What kind of aviation training ship do we need? Those for RAN and French navy is just imitating frigate's-flight-deck size
I like what the French do, it looks like a good solution. I will say as long as we expect the Chinook's to form a chunk of the carrier group the RN should size their training ship to match.

SW1 wrote:so many large decks available to the RN you could use nearly any ship
Mobilise hundreds of RN personnel, or 20 civilians, what's more cost effective?

Yes simulators will provide a chunk of training, and if we're expecting RAF and Army pilots to maintain sharp skills they will need some time on a real deck.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

So, using one of the River B2 for flight training is a perfect answer, for Wildcat and Merlin, and Tide/Bay for Chinook ?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:So, using one of the River B2 for flight training is a perfect answer, for Wildcat and Merlin, and Tide/Bay for Chinook ?
I think it is important to note that the French also have 4 flat tops of which 3 are LHDs which can and do rotated training duties

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Some what of an exaggeration shark bait. Any ship working up can be used for training. Be it a bay a tide a carrier a river ect doesn’t need a dedicated ship.

Pilots walking into a single seat f35 or typhoon now straight from simulator conversion. No ones expecting a pilot in a helicopter to go straight to landing at the extremes of the envelope first time out.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by shark bait »

The whole point of a training ship is to avoid disrupting regular combat ships, and improve availability in the core fleet (which is poor at the moment).

I expect a small contract handed to Serco for aviation training would return good value to the RN, RAF and AAC, allowing the expensive RN sailor's to be better utilised.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

shark bait wrote:The whole point of a training ship is to avoid disrupting regular combat ships, and improve availability in the core fleet (which is poor at the moment).

I expect a small contract handed to Serco for aviation training would return good value to the RN, RAF and AAC, allowing the expensive RN sailor's to be better utilised.
I think it would be best that regular combat aircraft land on regular combat ships. Instead of buying a training ship we should use the money to improve fleet avialabiliy.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Agree:
SW1 wrote:we should use the money to improve fleet avialabiliy
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Rambo
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Rambo »

Wave Knight departed Cammell Laird yesterday but had engine trouble. Pictured at Pier head last night. She's back at Cammells now. She was fitted with Phalanx fore and aft which suggests a Gulf deployment when she is fixed.

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 253
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by hovematlot »

Another image showing her aft Phalanx mounting. Looks like she's off somewhere warm
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Pongoglo »

Great looking ships - very capable too. Clearly we need them and they must be retained, can handle most of the 'lone wolf' taskings and free up the Tides to focus mainly on CSG.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2328
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by bobp »

Saw Wave Knight up close in Portland Harbour, last Tuesday, she looked like she was taking on supplies. I hope the MOD are keeping her.

Brasil
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 24 Aug 2018, 01:40
Brazil

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Brasil »

bobp wrote:Saw Wave Knight up close in Portland Harbour, last Tuesday, she looked like she was taking on supplies. I hope the MOD are keeping her.
Where is the Wave Ruller?


Post Reply