Fort Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Not a big deal, should have been scrapped a decade ago.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I wouldn’t be so blasé with such cuts - whilst yes they are old, yes we would have been probably better off saving RFA Fort George in 2010, it is still a significant cut. In the bigger scheme of things probably a cut that can be managed, but it is not a cut for good.shark bait wrote:Not a big deal, should have been scrapped a decade ago.
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I don't have an issue with the cut but it's time HMG committed to building the replacements.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I would say it time to commit to a replacement even if we said 500 million per ship and put it out to tender to see what we could get these ships should be around for 40 plus years
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
One replacement just will not do. A commitment to build (and operate) three such ships is what is required.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
The replacements need to fit into a balanced fleet regardless of cost. Until the LSG concept is finalised, funded and backed up by firm commitments from HMG its difficult to establish what the optimum balance of the fleet might be. The future of the UK's Amphibious capability remains the big unknown together with the RFA vessels to support the capability and until decisions are made the cost going forward is unquantifiable.Tempest414 wrote:I would say it time to commit to a replacement even if we said 500 million per ship and put it out to tender to see what we could get these ships should be around for 40 plus years
One thing is for sure, if the UK's ability to operate the CSG depends on 2 or 3 SSS vessels they will rapidly become the highest value targets in any conflict. Sorting out RN's strength in depth must be a top priority in any upcoming review.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I hear what you are saying however if we can't get 3 SSS for 1.5 billion capable of fully supporting the carriers it will be a very poor show. And for me the tender should go out to UK yards first and if they can't come up with the goods then it should go out to international tender but it should stay a fixed price contractPoiuytrewq wrote:The replacements need to fit into a balanced fleet regardless of cost. Until the LSG concept is finalised, funded and backed up by firm commitments from HMG its difficult to establish what the optimum balance of the fleet might be. The future of the UK's Amphibious capability remains the big unknown together with the RFA vessels to support the capability and until decisions are made the cost going forward is unquantifiable.Tempest414 wrote:I would say it time to commit to a replacement even if we said 500 million per ship and put it out to tender to see what we could get these ships should be around for 40 plus years
One thing is for sure, if the UK's ability to operate the CSG depends on 2 or 3 SSS vessels they will rapidly become the highest value targets in any conflict. Sorting out RN's strength in depth must be a top priority in any upcoming review.
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
But the UK tender shoild make allowance for the c. 38% of the cost that returns directly to the Treasury via Income Tax, NI and VATTempest414 wrote:tender should go out to UK yards first and if they can't come up with the goods then it should go out to international tender but it should stay a fixed price contract
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I think we can have ago at cost right now the RFA has 4 x Tide class , 2 x Wave class , Fort Vic , Argus and 3 x Bay classPoiuytrewq wrote:RFA vessels to support the capability and until decisions are made the cost going forward is unquantifiable.
If the RFA was to move to 5 x Tide class , 3 x SSS and 4 x new Enforcer we could wrap that up for about 3 billion or 250 million over 12 years
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
again I here what you are saying but it should stay fixed price if the Treasury wish to wave the tax return fine buy meCaribbean wrote:But the UK tender shoild make allowance for the c. 38% of the cost that returns directly to the Treasury via Income Tax, NI and VATTempest414 wrote:tender should go out to UK yards first and if they can't come up with the goods then it should go out to international tender but it should stay a fixed price contract
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I'd disagree. If offered overseas the fixed unit price should be £310m, so the net cost to the treasury is the same (£1.5b), but £570m is retained for the MOD budget (though in reality a chunk of that will be spent in redundancy and kept by the Treasury to cover social security payments). If you can't get something built for that, then you haven't got enough money in the pot.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
The thing for me is that we should be able to build a SSS for 500 million per ship if we stick to the task and don't try and get clever by trying to add well docks and the like. If it really needs some form of ship to shore then give it simple Ocean style ramp or RO RO style rear end
For me if it was 210 meters by 30 meters had a full width T hangar capable of holding 4 Merlin's or 1 Chinook and 2 wildcats operating off of 2 spots plus had a RO RO rear end we would be in a great place
For me if it was 210 meters by 30 meters had a full width T hangar capable of holding 4 Merlin's or 1 Chinook and 2 wildcats operating off of 2 spots plus had a RO RO rear end we would be in a great place
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
SKB wrote:NavyLookout Sadly this fine old veteran FSS is unlikely to sail again.
42 years old.
Not sure. There are many ships lasting longer than 42 years, and it is "just" a supply ship. If RN throw away the idea of heavy RAS rig to support full scale of strike package, then anything can happen.shark bait wrote:Not a big deal, should have been scrapped a decade ago.
There is a clear push to build SSS in Britain. But, there is no good place to do it (no good infrastructure nor skilled labor), and therefore when built in Britain, its already POOR "value for money" will further rank down. (Of course, including tax refund will change the math, but we see no sign Treasury accepting such a standpoint).
Also, there looks like no clear will to buy it. For example, even here there are comments like, "postpone it if not building it in Britain", "a sole SSS can do it until ~2030", etc. Actually, I was a bit shocked with not much will for SSS. I thought SSS was something cannot be postponed (the reason I'm always saying "cancel T31 to build SSS", although too late). Also we know French CVTF is going on with only 200-300t munitions carried on their 3 supply ships. This means, if UK is happy to only provide a counterpart of French CVTF and not US CVTF, SSS is NOT must, looks like, I'm afraid.
# By the way, "technically", with what speed UK CV can be re-supplied by US Solid Store Ships?
With these clear controversy and very very severe lack of money within 5 years in equipment budget (even before COVID19), I'm afraid SSS be postponed for 5 years or so. In this case, RN can just let it gapped, or Waves, elder-Forts, Tides, any can be modified to carry munitions if it is only 300-400 tonnes per hull. They are very large vessels.
I guess in the next cut,
- 2 elder-Forts disbanded with their replacement gapped for a decade (until 2030)
- 2 Waves will be sold (anyway no crew for 6 AO)
- 1 LPD will be sold (Bulwark may remain, after its re-activation)
- Argus disbanded as planned, with "possible replacement in future" = no replacement.
- Also, HMS Scott will go.
This will leave RN/RFA with auxiliary/amphibious/survey ships as
- 1 LPD + 3 LSD (Bays)
- 1 Fort Victoria + 4 Tides
- 2 Survey ships (Echo/Enterprise) and Magpie
and in 2028 and 2030, 2 SSS will come in to replace Fort Victoria.
Pessimistic? Might be. But, I really happy to be corrected.
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
To put it in perspective, Donald-san, if a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier were to operate at the intended maximum target of 36 aircraft at 3 missions per day (108 sorties), it could theoretically use > 730t of munitions and > 650t of fuel per day, if everything was actually used/ consumed. Obviously that is an unlikely scenario, but it shows that 3-400t is really only sufficient for peace-time use (and mainly to keep the larders full, not provide significant amounts of munitions). The Tides and Waves can carry a theoretical maximum of 160t (likely much less) in 8 TEU containers (and use vertrep to move solid stores), so they are a useful supplement to Fort Victoria, but by no means capable of genuinely supporting the carriers.donald_of_tokyo wrote:any can be modified to carry munitions if it is only 300-400 tonnes per hul
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
I totally agree. Yet, there remains a claim "no SSS if not built in UK". This means, SSS priority is "lower" (if not low) for them.Caribbean wrote:To put it in perspective, Donald-san, if a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier were to operate at the intended maximum target of 36 aircraft at 3 missions per day (108 sorties), it could theoretically use > 730t of munitions and > 650t of fuel per day, if everything was actually used/ consumed. Obviously that is an unlikely scenario, but it shows that 3-400t is really only sufficient for peace-time use (and mainly to keep the larders full, not provide significant amounts of munitions). The Tides and Waves can carry a theoretical maximum of 160t (likely much less) in 8 TEU containers (and use vertrep to move solid stores), so they are a useful supplement to Fort Victoria, but by no means capable of genuinely supporting the carriers.donald_of_tokyo wrote:any can be modified to carry munitions if it is only 300-400 tonnes per hul
"Regardless of where to be built, SSS is must. If possible, do it within UK." I thought this was the answer, but...
By the way, your post points out a question how the French CVTF is doing. Are they supplied by US supply ships when in strike role? If yes, how? No heavy RAS rig they use? Or are they just using their CVN's munitions store? In the latter case, UK CV with much larger munitions store can do the same thing much better.
I understand the basic idea in NATO is, with 1 French and 2 UK CVs, "European side of NATO" shall provide 1 CVTF deployable at any moment (not easy with 3 hulls, though). And, if the European CVTF means French CDG level (for strike), then SSS need rapidly goes down from "must" to "good to have". It is only when US CVTF level of strike is needed, when the SSS need comes in, I guess?
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Moved to FSS thread
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Isn't her planned to be decommissioned in 2023, not 2020?
What happened? Already "cut" has started?
What happened? Already "cut" has started?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5632
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Maybe a move to get rid before HMG come up with a grand plan to refit and make do for SSS
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Yet another chicken race?
Really hope RN/RFA will not regret it...
Really hope RN/RFA will not regret it...
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
Perhaps scrapping one to save the other for a bit longer?
”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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Fort Rosalie Class Replenishment Ship (RFA)
But, to keep the second "longer", it is better to keep the other (not scrapping) for cannibalizing.