Future Solid Support Ship

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

So annual costs are somewhere around 170m wack it up to 200m per year job done still very cheap for what it gives the UK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5561
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 03:31 So annual costs are somewhere around 170m wack it up to 200m per year job done still very cheap for what it gives the UK
And cut what, in place? £960M is about 40% of the assumed £2.6Bn T32 program cost (to which only £0.004B is allocated at this moment).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

I think we are jumping ahead to kit / numbers without aligning to the expected requirement.

The role of the RFA is to provide operational and logistical support to the Navy. It is not a fighting force.

The move away from singleton operations and a focus on the two CSGs, means that for the surface fleet the role will be focused on fuel and solid support for these groups. Four Tide tankers combined with the three FSSs seems a reasonable force to do this.

With the restructure of the RM away from Cdo level amphibious assault, and more towards distributed operations, then the RFA also has to be more distributed or more likely be able to serve distributed units through “sea bases” via air and sea supply. This is why IMO a return to a JSBL class is the right solution. Two JSBLs with secondary HADR roles would meet the minimum requirement.

So a fleet of 4 Tide Tankers, 3 FSSs and 2 JSBLs - no need to increase the RFA as long as it’s doing what it’s meant to do and no more.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 03:44
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 03:31 So annual costs are somewhere around 170m wack it up to 200m per year job done still very cheap for what it gives the UK
And cut what, in place? £960M is about 40% of the assumed £2.6Bn T32 program cost (to which only £0.004B is allocated at this moment).
Nothing just pay the extra 30 million for a great service and if we cut anything we can cut the bollocks starting with the MROSS which should move under the Point class system of service with a strict budget or back to the navy and the RFA should move back to a 12 ship Logistics fleet with it ending up with

5 x tankers
3 x SSS
4 x MRSS

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

The problem I have with the MRSS is that it’s trying to cover not only logistics and support, but also the LPD, LSD, ASS and future LSS roles. Areas where the RFA should not be.

With the FCF working in smaller units, closer to high threat zones, any LPD / LSS requirements should be met with RN ships. For the FCF, I do not see a need for the LSDs in their traditional form.

All Army logistics should just be that “Army”.

Once you boil it down to what the RFA should be doing then two (or if we are rich three) large JSBLs with aviation support facilities is what is required.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

My thinking is that the MRSS would something like the Point class LSS but based on the bigger Baltic Enabler class with each carrying 3 SSC's and 4 LCVP to allow ship to shore plus the ability to operate 8+ helicopter

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 11:49 My thinking is that the MRSS would something like the Point class LSS but based on the bigger Baltic Enabler class with each carrying 3 SSC's and 4 LCVP to allow ship to shore plus the ability to operate 8+ helicopter
Very ambitious, I personally would look more towards an evolution of the FSS design with a larger hangar (up to 6 helicopters like Argus) and a well dock of similar size to the Bay class. Even then it will be close to £1-£1.5bn.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 12:16
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 11:49 My thinking is that the MRSS would something like the Point class LSS but based on the bigger Baltic Enabler class with each carrying 3 SSC's and 4 LCVP to allow ship to shore plus the ability to operate 8+ helicopter
Very ambitious, I personally would look more towards an evolution of the FSS design with a larger hangar (up to 6 helicopters like Argus) and a well dock of similar size to the Bay class. Even then it will be close to £1-£1.5bn.
If we’re going to a budget of 1.5bn I’d got for 3 evolved Karel Doorman class, already 6 helo hanger and twin chinook flight deck, 2 LCVPs and 2000m lane metres. Reduce those lane meters add a small well dock and 2 more LCVPs slots and there you have it.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 12:16
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 11:49 My thinking is that the MRSS would something like the Point class LSS but based on the bigger Baltic Enabler class with each carrying 3 SSC's and 4 LCVP to allow ship to shore plus the ability to operate 8+ helicopter
Very ambitious, I personally would look more towards an evolution of the FSS design with a larger hangar (up to 6 helicopters like Argus) and a well dock of similar size to the Bay class. Even then it will be close to £1-£1.5bn.
Have to say yours looks much more ambitious than mine some stats on MV Baltic Enabler

242 x 35 meters
Lower hold 705 lane meters hight 7.2 m
Main deck 1925 LM's hight 7.2 meters
Upper deck 1827 LM's hight 5.2 meters
Weather deck 1985 LM's

So for me convert 1/3 of the upper deck into accommodation cut 4 LCVP bays in to the other 2/3 leave the main deck and lower hold as is enclose the a hangar under the bridge install a crane at the back to off load mexeflotes for the rear ramp to lower on paint it grey

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Karel Doorman is a good design but it’s over 10 years old. An evolution of the FSS design which is an evolution of the Tide design will give build and operational benefits. Cost wise I’d say the latter would edge it.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 13:22 Have to say yours looks much more ambitious than mine some stats on MV Baltic Enabler

242 x 35 meters
Lower hold 705 lane meters hight 7.2 m
Main deck 1925 LM's hight 7.2 meters
Upper deck 1827 LM's hight 5.2 meters
Weather deck 1985 LM's

So for me convert 1/3 of the upper deck into accommodation cut 4 LCVP bays in to the other 2/3 leave the main deck and lower hold as is enclose the a hangar under the bridge install a crane at the back to off load mexeflotes for the rear ramp to lower on paint it grey
8 helicopters is very ambitious, unless you are just talking about transporting them, rather than operating them. Design studies in the past have shown that 6 is the max and unless you go for a full length (with a hangar under) flat deck.

Also 4 LCVPs for a logistics ship seems overkill. If you want a LSS then maybe, but that’s an RN ship in my book.

One of the things this ship will need to be able to do is transport and handle hazardous cargo - this isn’t something that is inherent in your design I believe.
”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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Jake1992 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 13:25 Karel Doorman is a good design but it’s over 10 years old. An evolution of the FSS design which is an evolution of the Tide design will give build and operational benefits. Cost wise I’d say the latter would edge it.
Karel Doorman is better designs to evolve in to a semi amphibious role than the Tides/SSS in my opinion. KD in its self is evolved from the Enforcer class.

Cost wise your right carrying on from the Tides would be cheaper but less capable I think, but it depends on the budget and if these would be the sole class of vessel from MRSS or just part of the mix, If the former than KD offers more for me.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 13:30
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 13:22 Have to say yours looks much more ambitious than mine some stats on MV Baltic Enabler

242 x 35 meters
Lower hold 705 lane meters hight 7.2 m
Main deck 1925 LM's hight 7.2 meters
Upper deck 1827 LM's hight 5.2 meters
Weather deck 1985 LM's

So for me convert 1/3 of the upper deck into accommodation cut 4 LCVP bays in to the other 2/3 leave the main deck and lower hold as is enclose the a hangar under the bridge install a crane at the back to off load mexeflotes for the rear ramp to lower on paint it grey
8 helicopters is very ambitious, unless you are just talking about transporting them, rather than operating them. Design studies in the past have shown that 6 is the max and unless you go for a full length (with a hangar under) flat deck.

Also 4 LCVPs for a logistics ship seems overkill. If you want a LSS then maybe, but that’s an RN ship in my book.

One of the things this ship will need to be able to do is transport and handle hazardous cargo - this isn’t something that is inherent in your design I believe.
Given the ships size it would be able to operate 4 spots but operating helicopters would not be its primary role but as the hole weather deck could be given over to helicopters it could transport 16+ folded and with its hangar size and width it could operate 4 x Merlin and 2 Chinooks

As for LCVP's fit what you want loads of space on the upper deck even with 1/3 given over to accommodation

this Class of ship already transport hazardous cargo for mining in the high north and is Ice class 1A Super

For me these ships would make great Logistics Sea Bases

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4040
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 11:49 My thinking is that the MRSS….
Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 10:47 The problem I have with the MRSS….
I don’t think the MRSS is going to happen.

If the future is heavily dependent on naval MALE drones then an MRSS like Ellida is clearly the wrong choice especially if the entire Amphibious fleet is to be replaced by a single class.

Much better to convert and retain the Albions, build a couple of Ocean Mk2’s and a couple of Karel Doorman sized Enforcers.

I really can’t see that being more expensive than six Ellidas.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 19:41
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 11:49 My thinking is that the MRSS….
Repulse wrote: 28 Jan 2023, 10:47 The problem I have with the MRSS….
I don’t think the MRSS is going to happen.

If the future is heavily dependent on naval MALE drones then an MRSS like Ellida is clearly the wrong choice especially if the entire Amphibious fleet is to be replaced by a single class.

Much better to convert and retain the Albions, build a couple of Ocean Mk2’s and a couple of Karel Doorman sized Enforcers.

I really can’t see that being more expensive than six Ellidas.
It’s a shame they didn’t take this route, double down on sea control and securing the littoral centring the future around the commandos. if they had taken a joined up approach as the enabling element of insertion a army medium/strike brigade it would have been useful in many areas and at this time specifically so along the Norwegian and Baltic coasts. Much like a modern take on the riverine mobile force. However they blew their cash and manpower up the wall chasing unicorns of running large scale air operations off the deck of an aircraft carrier and emasculating the RM in the process, now there scratching around wondering what to do with what’s left.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4671
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Repulse »

Narvik is a great example of playing expeditionary warfare without air cover - you need both. Though you can do air operations without amphibious ships.

Having said that, as long as you aren’t attacking defended positions, an army brigade can be transported to Norway via the Points and STUFT, covered by the CSGs you despise so much.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Ron5
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Tempest414 »

Moving over to Amphib thread

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

shark bait wrote: 30 Jan 2023, 15:21 The video says Heavy RAS is fitted, I thought that had been scrapped?
I suspect what Rolls Royce developed as Heavy RAS and what Navantia are now calling Heavy RAS are different things.

Nice to be proven wrong though.
These users liked the author RichardIC for the post:
Ron5

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by shark bait »

I would have though so too, but the video shows three pallets being transferred at the same time, which is much heavier than any other load I've seen in real life.

...but it's always hard to know how closely the marketing models reflect the engineering models.
These users liked the author shark bait for the post:
Ron5
@LandSharkUK


User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Recruiting 300 people in trades where there’s a national shortage… in north Devon!?

Bongodog
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 25 Nov 2020, 20:56
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by Bongodog »

RichardIC wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 17:52 Recruiting 300 people in trades where there’s a national shortage… in north Devon!?
Right next door to Cornwall one of the most deprived Counties with a high proprotion of poorly paid tourist based jobs. Might be easier than you think to recruit staff
These users liked the author Bongodog for the post:
SW1

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by RichardIC »

Bongodog wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 19:04
RichardIC wrote: 01 Feb 2023, 17:52 Recruiting 300 people in trades where there’s a national shortage… in north Devon!?
Right next door to Cornwall one of the most deprived Counties with a high proprotion of poorly paid tourist based jobs. Might be easier than you think to recruit staff
I’m sure you’re right. And there are plans to use what little there is of the current workforce on train-the-trainer courses in Cadiz. But you’re going to to end up with a very lopsided workforce if you don’t manage to recruit a proportion who are already skilled.

Otherwise you’re going to end up with complex engineering performed by people with more experience of serving cream teas.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5744
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future Solid Support Ship

Post by SW1 »

Opportunity for a career in a region of the U.K. where there is jobs but not a lot of careers can be an attractive option.

Post Reply