Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Brasil
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 24 Aug 2018, 01:40
Brazil

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Brasil »


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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.

They could possibly replace the Bays in the Caribbean and Gulf if the conversions were possible which would make a big difference to the wider fleet.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things
Sounds good to me. Why not APT(N) and APT(S)? The Waves certainly have done it before.

Realistically how much would these vessels fetch if sold to Brazil? Maybe £40m or £50m for the pair? Meanwhile we have to spend hundreds of millions on replacement vessels to perform the same role. Seems bonkers :crazy:

If they really are now surplus to requirements and bearing in mind that they should have a good 15 to 20 years service left in them why not invest a small amount now to turn them into multipurpose vessels. Sounds reasonable enough to consider in my opinion.

With a similar crew allocation to the Bays, the operating costs should be similar and if they were able to relieve the Bays it would be a big win.

The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.
Agreed!
”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

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 1983
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by R686 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I have said before that the 2 Waves should be used for AP-N on 6 month rotation freeing up a Bay for other things
Sounds good to me. Why not APT(N) and APT(S)? The Waves certainly have done it before.

Realistically how much would these vessels fetch if sold to Brazil? Maybe £40m or £50m for the pair? Meanwhile we have to spend hundreds of millions on replacement vessels to perform the same role. Seems bonkers :crazy:

If they really are now surplus to requirements and bearing in mind that they should have a good 15 to 20 years service left in them why not invest a small amount now to turn them into multipurpose vessels. Sounds reasonable enough to consider in my opinion.

With a similar crew allocation to the Bays, the operating costs should be similar and if they were able to relieve the Bays it would be a big win.

The UK really has to stop these fire sales if the decline is ever to be stopped and reversed.
Agree on the sentiment, but the reasoning behind the decision is money and manning those issues don’t go away in the short term.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Don’t think the waves can really replace the bays versatility and ability to operate boats or off load stores more important in carribean tasking. Also maybe communication or surveillance systems the bays may have that a tanker does not.

It would perhaps of been better to order a 5th tide tanker and remove the wave class, commonality of ship types.

However ultimately the question is do we need 6 tankers? Maybe someone knows more about future fleet size than is currently public. If the requirement is really only to provide a tanker to support the carrier, a tanker for around the uk and perhaps one deployed elsewhere do we need more than 4.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

R686 wrote:Agree on the sentiment, but the reasoning behind the decision is money and manning those issues don’t go away in the short term.
Absolutely, but if current vessels are sold off cheaply and prematurely and replacement vessels continue to be procured for vast sums, manning rises will be unaffordable and the decline will not stop.

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:Don’t think the waves can really replace the bays versatility and ability to operate boats or off load stores more important in carribean tasking.
Very little can replace the versatility of a Bay Class but what 'boats' can a Bay operate that a modified Wave/Joint logistics ship cannot apart from an LCU?

Is a well dock really necessary for APT(N)?

A modified Wave could unload stores for Hurricane relief in the Caribean via mexefloate just as efficiently as a Bay if configured to do so.
Also maybe communication or surveillance systems the bays may have that a tanker does not.
If a Batch 2 River Class is adequate for APT(N) it shouldn't be too hard to refit a Wave to carry out the same task.
It would perhaps of been better to order a 5th tide tanker and remove the wave class, commonality of ship types.
If money was no object then I would agree but would that be a luxury or a necessity?
However ultimately the question is do we need 6 tankers? Maybe someone knows more about future fleet size than is currently public. If the requirement is really only to provide a tanker to support the carrier, a tanker for around the uk and perhaps one deployed elsewhere do we need more than 4.
It all depends on the UK's future ambition. One thing is for sure temporary manning issues is not a good reason to dispose of perfectly good and recently refitted vessels.

The lack of a coherent long term strategy is obvious.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.
An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.

I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Poinytrewq

The landing craft and mexeflote mainly. Not sure how you would get either of them on a wave tanker. The bay has cranes diggers truck ect that it can offload not sure how u do that from a wave.

If there was enough money to attempt a refit the 2 waves would that be much cheaper than buying a 5 tide for £140m I don’t know.

I think what is more likely is that we don’t need more than 4 tankers. So the question then becomes do we want to keep them to provide a contribution to allied ops and reduce something else to pay for it

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SW1 wrote:If there was enough money to attempt a refit the 2 waves would that be much cheaper than buying a 5 tide for £140m I don’t know.
Short comment. I read somewhere that Tide costed 550M GBP for 4 hull to Daewoo, and another 150M GBP for fitting out in UK. So, 700m GBP for 4 hulls --> 175m GBP per hull.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the Waves could do a good job on AP-N as for a refit they already have a pair of hoofing cranes on them so for me fit mounting points on the main deck for 2 LCVPs and a mexeflote . these could lowed in to the water by the cranes and then the 500 cubic meters of general stores could off loaded to the LCVPs if no port was available.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Rather than sell these vessels why not look into converting them into multi use platforms specialising in the HADR and mothership roles.
An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.

I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
Exactly, HNoMS Maud is a very well balanced design and a great example of how versatile these multi role vessels can be.
image.jpg
image.jpg
This diagram illustrates the generous amount of space that could be utilised for HADR equipment/supplies or to support Amphibious operations. The accommodation and aviation facilities could be vastly improved even if only as a surge capability.
image.jpg
It is worth noting that the Waves are considerably larger than HNoMS Maud. Modified Waves with some or all of the tanks removed would be a cost effective way to add a pair of joint logistics/ mothership vessels into fleet, substantially increasing the UK's HADR capabilities and also supporting the Amphibious fleet. I hadn't considered the possibly of a Diligence replacement but why not?

It should be possible to add a forward repair capability to any mothership design reasonably easily if required. This would make an excellent alternative for the Bay assigned to Kipion in the Gulf.
image.jpg
The similarities between the Wave class and HNoMS Maud are obvious.

RFA Wave Ruler
image.jpg
HNoMS Maud
image.jpg
Given the size and scale of the Wave Class would a more ambitious conversion be worth considering?

Here is Wave Knight alongside Ark Royal to illustrate the impressive size and potential of these vessels.
image.jpg
Personally I think the Damen Logistic Support Vessel concept would be a good basis to proceed from.

This is the Supporter 19000 variant

At 175m it's over 20m shorter in length than the Wave class but it can still pack a lot in.

Damen lists these vessels as suitable for the following tasks,

Logistics and support capabilities (RAS, RO-RO, Ship-to-Shore transfer and LO-LO), Search and rescue, Humanitarian Aid and disaster relief, oil pollution preparedness and protection of trade routes.
image.jpg
The heavy duty davits can deploy a LCM which would could be useful for both HADR and Amphibious operations and hanger capacity is large enough to embark 2 medium sized helicopters.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ing-craft/

Attaching mexefloates would probably be a better option for RFA use and would free up a lot of extra deck space.
image.jpg
This vessel has a vehicle deck of around 1500sqm as well as a cargo capacity of 40 TEU.
image.jpg
The vehicle deck can be accessed by a steel beach or via side and stern ramps making for an extremely versatile vessel.
image.jpg
Adding to the versatility is the CB90 capability. Four CB90 type vessels can be clearly seen stored on deck along with 2 LCM's and 36 TEU's.

It's not clear how many of these features could be added to a modified Wave but it would reasonable to explore these options fully before disposing of 2 more perfectly useable vessels for more short term book balancing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

When the time comes, this is the type platform that could take over a bunch of duties. I would say a vehicle deck is a bit of a step too far however, a crane and space on the deck is sufficient.

Would it be a good thing if the MOD could sell the waves now, and set the wheels in motion for a multi-role tanker to enter service at the same time Argus drops out of service?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:When the time comes, this is the type platform that could take over a bunch of duties. I would say a vehicle deck is a bit of a step too far however, a crane and space on the deck is sufficient.
The vehicle deck and steel beach would be an extremely useful feature and would make up for the lack of such a feature on the new FSS ships.

It comes down to defining a primary role for each vessel with ideally clearly defined secondary and tertiary roles also. If a simple 50t deck crane and ample storage is all that's required then great but I suspect to optimise the hull it would need a more extensive refit.
Would it be a good thing if the MOD could sell the waves now, and set the wheels in motion for a multi-role tanker to enter service at the same time Argus drops out of service?
Ideally, yes, but it may lead to another MARS debacle. I would say by the end of the process it's likely that hull numbers would be cut from 4 down to 3 or from 3 down to 2. The result would be further decline.

How much would the Waves cost to modify them into respectable logistic support vessels?

£30m or £40m would go a long way to optimising the Waves for a more multipurpose role.

The big question is what is the priority? Big multipurpose logistic support vessels or pretend frigates like Leander?

I think in the past the UK has been too quick to dispose of vessels even when they clearly have a lot of service life left in them. Hopefully this won't be a case of history repeating itself.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq

I’m not disputing the utility of such vessels what I’m more asking is at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new. Is that not how we arrived at the bay class, they did one major refit of the round table class and quickly realised buying new was a much better way to go.

Imo when it comes to these rfas, a tanker is primarily a tanker first and foremost and while for example the tides have a helicopter hanger and medical area for example which is good to undertake other roles. Likewise any future stores ships needs to be primarily a fully blown stores ship, with a helicopter hanger and possibly a medial area.

Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.

The supporter 19000 ship you’ve linked I think will arrive or something similar but it will be a different class of ship (it’s not a tanker or stores ship) it will be a sea base for sea control and unmanned operations and the sooner we get some the better. innovation and experimentation will be key with this ship as endless option could flow from it. Are we brave enough to innovate and allocate cash to it?? We were once not sure we are now.

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 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The vehicle deck and steel beach would be an extremely useful feature and would make up for the lack of such a feature on the new FSS ships.
Yes, it would be useful, and it has to come at the expense of something else. Only so much can be crammed into a platform, at some point there are too many slices of small capability, and none of them on a scale to be truly valuable.
(Ask the Dutch navy for an example)

If we're still discussing a reterofit, I'm going to guess it's almost impossible, as the amount of work would surpass the value of the ship.
@LandSharkUK

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:I’m not disputing the utility of such vessels what I’m more asking is at what point does the size, scale and cost of such a refit outway saying better to sell and build from new. Is that not how we arrived at the bay class, they did one major refit of the round table class and quickly realised buying new was a much better way to go.
Of course it's a balance and at some point you reach a tipping point were building new makes more sense. I don't think the Waves are old enough to have reached that tipping point yet and I believe it is worth considering other options for the Waves before they are sold. I am not definitively suggesting the Waves must be converted into logistic support vessels, I am merely keen to explore the possibility to see if the numbers stack up.

I take your point that 4 Tides might be enough, and it might, but logistical support vessels/ motherships are much more than tankers and I believe that these large multipurpose platforms will be more useful to UK interests in the coming years than pretend frigates like Leander.
Not sure how relevant diligence or Argus are anymore to future uk operations.
Argus has been a very successful and highly cost effective vessel but I am not in favour of a like for like Argus replacement. If money was no object the options for an Argus replacement are almost endless but these are difficult times and finding a cost effective way to retain the capabilities of Argus within the fleet by 2026 is vital.

My proposal is to split the PCRS role between the 3 Bays and rotate the aviation support/training role around the Bays as required. I would add a large multipurpose mission space to all 3 Bays allowing up to 6 Merlins to be embarked or a multitude of other craft/equipment to enhance the Bays Amphibious Assault capabilities. Adding this mission space to the working deck would have the added bonus of creating a 3rd Chinook capable landing spot.
image.jpg
image.jpg
I think 3 Bays configured in this way would complement Albion very well and would allow HMS PoW to return to its primary CVF role. It would be a cheap and effective way to offset the loss of Ocean without consigning one of the carriers to LPH duty.

Of course this would require cost effective replacements for the Bays usual deployments in the Caribbean and the Gulf and I have proposed acquiring 2 commercially derived logistical support vessels to take over from the Bays. An improved Point design would probably work well but the Waves could be the obvious and most cost effective solution. They need be nothing complicated, cost effectiveness would be paramount.

I think there will always be a role for a Diligence type vessel but due to the current financial situation it is hardly a top priority. Converting an existing vessel may be the only way to reintroduce the forward repair capability back into the fleet.
The supporter 19000 ship you’ve linked I think will arrive or something similar but it will be a different class of ship (it’s not a tanker or stores ship) it will be a sea base for sea control and unmanned operations and the sooner we get some the better. innovation and experimentation will be key with this ship as endless option could flow from it. Are we brave enough to innovate and allocate cash to it?? We were once not sure we are now.
I think you are correct and it's a great shame. I had hoped the T31 programme would produce some useful innovation in this area but it's clear pretend Frigates are going to be the outcome which seems like a missed opportunity to me.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by SKB »

Please stop turning regular threads into more imaginary fantasy ship threads.

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

SKB wrote:Please stop turning regular threads into more imaginary ship fantasy threads.
Please stop being so boring

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me if we were to was the Wave class for AP-N full time then just add 2 LCVPs on the fore deck and use the cranes to get them into the water and 2 Pacific 24s ribs between the rigs and the superstructure. Next as in the past they can operate a wildcat or a coast guard helicopter or in hurricane season a HC4 Merlin. Also for me the Waves are worth keeping as part of NATO commitment as with the NATO airforces the Navys suffer from lack of good tankers

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

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:For me if we were to was the Wave class for AP-N full time then just add 2 LCVPs on the fore deck and use the cranes to get them into the water and 2 Pacific 24s ribs between the rigs and the superstructure. Next as in the past they can operate a wildcat or a coast guard helicopter or in hurricane season a HC4 Merlin.
Agreed, keep it as simple as possible. The biggest challenge for a modified Wave would be getting the Vehicles ashore on a HADR deployment. Could a small Mexefloate be carried on deck?

Would a more capable LCVP be the best solution?

Adapting a Wave for the mothership or forward repair role may be a bit more complicated and expensive.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Caribbean »

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 pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Wave Class Tanker (RFA)

Post by Timmymagic »

shark bait wrote:An interesting plan, just have to look at what BMT have done with the Tide Class for the Norwegian Navy to see what is possible.

I think that is the most realistic option to get and Argus and diligence replacement, by combining those roles into a multi-role tanker.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Would a more capable LCVP be the best solution?

Adapting a Wave for the mothership or forward repair role may be a bit more complicated and expensive.
Rebuilding the Waves would cost a fortune and would not be an ideal solution.
The Maud is a good design but is also lacking for some tasks.

If we want to 'save' them surely the more useful idea would be to use one for the Bulk Fuel movement role that the Maersk Rapier was undertaking and keep one in service as a tanker or mothballed. At least one would be earning part of their keep then, whilst being available in times of crisis?

As to replacing a Bay in Hurricane season and the RN law enforcement tasking in the Caribbean. Plus looking at replacing Diligence and Argus. The answer has always been staring us in the face. Resurrect the MARS CSS(A) design. It has all the helideck, dock, cargo space, vehicle space, hospital, craneage etc. that you could ever want or need. Get 2 and not only would you have an incredible asset for Amphib operations in time of war. But they could also be used in the FSS role. Think of the benefits:

-Huge helideck and hangar (change the design so it can hangar 2 x Chinook)
- Dock for large landing craft
- Steel beach
- Davits for LCVP
-Mexeflote
- Ability to hold huge volumes of cargo for HADR/Amphib ops/Workshops
- Ability to carry and support large numbers of troops/evaquee's
- Heavy RAS ability
- Massive medical facilities
- Big, big cranes
- Could be re-roled into pretty much anything you require
- A year round Caribbean tasking wouldn't be hard to get volunteers for..

At one stroke you could replace Argus, Diligence, do APT(N) all year round.

But the real bit of genius would be if we could get DFID to pay for it.....after all it would be the UK's main HADR resource, the expanded medical facilities could be used as a mobile hospital for port visits to developing nations, its big so is a great advert for UK plc, 2 additional FSS type vessels would be great news for the UK shipbuilding industry, containerised facilities could be retained to replace Diligence's capabilities with ease. The addition of 2 additional ships to the FSS contract could reduce costs all round, plus there would be more commonality across the fleet.

Of course in times of war DFID would be told to go shove it....

http://www.rfanostalgia.org/gallery3/in ... t/MARS-SSS

Post Reply