UK Defence Forum

shark bait wrote: ↑24 Jan 2023, 15:58 Thanks, that's the first image 've seen of her behind. I'm glad to see it's two helicopters plus UAVs, instead of either or!

However I was kinda hoping for a massive hanger like the Dutch put on their support ship.

As RN/RFA is fully aware of that design, and intentionally omitted it, it is deemed to be unimportant. Not worth investments. That's it.

Absolutely - the role of these ships will be to operate within a CSG. Adding additional unnecessary capabilities would have meant two not three.

There is however a discussion to be had on the future amphibious force structure where a JSBL design combined with smaller more numerous amphibious ships is worthy of consideration IMO.

With a new CGI

RichardIC wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 14:25 With a new CGI

Nice movie.

One thing to note. It says
- 101 RFA complement
- 57 augmentees
- capacity for 21 more

For comparison, Fort Vitoria carris
- 95 RFA
- 15 RN
- 24 RNSTS
- (up to 154 RN Air Squadron personnel)
We can see the new FSSS needs even more crew size compared to Fort Victoria. So, Fort Victoria's crew can man only one FSSS (even less).

Then, RFA Argus
- 80 RFA
- 50 RN (Part of the Maritime Aviation Support Force)
- (137 RN air squadron personnel or 200 Nursing and Medical Staff (When embarked))
So, Argus will surely be disbanded and reuse her crew to man second FSSS (even less).

As such, there is no crew for the 3rd FSSS (or you need TWO Tides put on extended readiness to man it). So, I guess the 3rd FSSS will be in reserve, to handle long maintenance and preparing for battle damage, like the 3 Invincible class CVS's and/or two Albion class LPDs.

Interesting.

Lovely video, thanks for posting Richard.

All that very expensive kit and people to support a mere 10 F-35? I do hope this means the government is truly committed to grow the F-35 fleet size to the point 36 could be operated. I think they are

But the RAF though, don't trust them as far as I can spit

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 15:08 … there is no crew for the 3rd FSSS (or you need TWO Tides put on extended readiness to man it). So, I guess the 3rd FSSS will be in reserve, to handle long maintenance and preparing for battle damage, like the 3 Invincible class CVS's and/or two Albion class LPDs.

Interesting.

Pretty certain now that the 2 Waves will be in long term reserve or sold.

I think it’s unlikely the RN will buy three to put one in reserve. I expect one will operate in the APT(N) role covering HADR duties in the Caribbean during hurricane season, with the other two paired with the carriers.

What is more likely IMO, is that either RFA manpower increases (with cuts elsewhere) or any replacements for Argus and Bays aren’t RFA manned. Quite possibly this means a small fleet (say 3) of RN manned specialist FCF platforms, with Army maritime logistics moving back to the Army (and outsourced).

we really need to be thinking harder and better when it comes to the RFA may we replace the 4 Points with 4 x Baltic Enabler class ships at 242 x 35 meters there main decks could carry and operate up to 10 helicopters while still carrying more vehicles than a Point on the lower vehicle decks

As for the Wave class we really need to push on and look at having allied crews like the UK , Canada , Australia , New Zealand all putting up say 40 crew each with the ships remaining British but one ships captain being Australian and other Canadian with both ships stationed in the Indo -Pacific

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 10:34 we really need to be thinking harder and better when it comes to the RFA may we replace the 4 Points with 4 x Baltic Enabler class ships at 242 x 35 meters there main decks could carry and operate up to 10 helicopters while still carrying more vehicles than a Point on the lower vehicle decks

As for the Wave class we really need to push on and look at having allied crews like the UK , Canada , Australia , New Zealand all putting up say 40 crew each with the ships remaining British but one ships captain being Australian and other Canadian with both ships stationed in the Indo -Pacific

RNZN lacks man-power, so that 2 of their 2 OPVs and 1 of their 2 IPVs are non-operational. 2 frigates, 1 AO, 1 RoRo and 1 PSV-like vessel are operational. They say, "33% of the fleet is non-operational now".

On UK-side, 2 Waves are virtually already gone. With 3 FSSS coming, Fort Vic. and Argus will be gone. No other choices.

The 3rd FSS or 1 of the 3 Bays or 1 of the 4 Tides will be also in extended readiness. I think this is not so bad. Among the fleet of 10 RFA vessels (3 FSSS, 3 Bays and 4 Tides), one being always in long-maintenance is normal. And, this means, the two Waves in extended readiness will be sold.

But, there will be 2 MROSS and 1 MCH-OSV. Then, another difficulty comes... How can we man them?

I m sure all 4 counties could find 40 crew to have 2 much needed tankers in the region we could start with 20 each and get one out working

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 11:34 I m sure all 4 counties could find 40 crew to have 2 much needed tankers in the region we could start with 20 each and get one out working

Why each nation first priority would be to man their own ships first.
Also remember that RFA sailors are foremost merchant navy not RN

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 11:34 I m sure all 4 counties could find 40 crew to have 2 much needed tankers in the region we could start with 20 each and get one out working

I'm sure it is impossible, at least for RNZN. New Zealand needs to find, 60 x 2 for their 2 OPVs, and 20 for their IPV. Crew for "Wave" comes after that, simply because New Zealand themselves operates a very new tanker, Aotearoa.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 10:48

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 10:34 we really need to be thinking harder and better when it comes to the RFA may we replace the 4 Points with 4 x Baltic Enabler class ships at 242 x 35 meters there main decks could carry and operate up to 10 helicopters while still carrying more vehicles than a Point on the lower vehicle decks

As for the Wave class we really need to push on and look at having allied crews like the UK , Canada , Australia , New Zealand all putting up say 40 crew each with the ships remaining British but one ships captain being Australian and other Canadian with both ships stationed in the Indo -Pacific

RNZN lacks man-power, so that 2 of their 2 OPVs and 1 of their 2 IPVs are non-operational. 2 frigates, 1 AO, 1 RoRo and 1 PSV-like vessel are operational. They say, "33% of the fleet is non-operational now".

On UK-side, 2 Waves are virtually already gone. With 3 FSSS coming, Fort Vic. and Argus will be gone. No other choices.

The 3rd FSS or 1 of the 3 Bays or 1 of the 4 Tides will be also in extended readiness. I think this is not so bad. Among the fleet of 10 RFA vessels (3 FSSS, 3 Bays and 4 Tides), one being always in long-maintenance is normal. And, this means, the two Waves in extended readiness will be sold.

But, there will be 2 MROSS and 1 MCH-OSV. Then, another difficulty comes... How can we man them?

Pay them more & recruit, a line will form.

So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 10:48 But, there will be 2 MROSS and 1 MCH-OSV. Then, another difficulty comes... How can we man them?

We can’t without removing the Bays, which is the right thing to do.

The FCF is targeted at short and small engagements so smaller logistical tail, and seeing its going into harms way it should be RN ship’s doing it. If we go bigger than it’s part of a CBG where the FSS can carry the supplies.

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:58 So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

Aren't RFA's basically double manned ? I recall speaking to a RFA person who said they work a half time on/half time off rota

Bongodog wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 17:58

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:58 So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

Aren't RFA's basically double manned ? I recall speaking to a RFA person who said they work a half time on/half time off rota

Not as far as I know Maybe some are 1.5 manned but even if all of them were 1.5 manned this would be 1200 out of 1800+

Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Jan 2023, 10:34

Bongodog wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 17:58

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:58 So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

Aren't RFA's basically double manned ? I recall speaking to a RFA person who said they work a half time on/half time off rota

Not as far as I know Maybe some are 1.5 manned but even if all of them were 1.5 manned this would be 1200 out of 1800+

Quite normal. No maritime organization has a man-power fully assigned as a crew. There are plenty of jobs on land. Typically, it is 50%. If it is 66%, it is very large ratio.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑27 Jan 2023, 12:32

Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Jan 2023, 10:34

Bongodog wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 17:58

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:58 So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

Aren't RFA's basically double manned ? I recall speaking to a RFA person who said they work a half time on/half time off rota

Not as far as I know Maybe some are 1.5 manned but even if all of them were 1.5 manned this would be 1200 out of 1800+

Quite normal. No maritime organization has a man-power fully assigned as a crew. There are plenty of jobs on land. Typically, it is 50%. If it is 66%, it is very large ratio.

But this is it to crew 4 x Tide , 2 x Wave , 3 x Bay , Fort Vic & Argus we need 805 RFA crew and to 1.5 crew all ships would be 1200 out of 1830 staff so for me it is not crew that is the problem but money to run the ships

Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Jan 2023, 12:41But this is it to crew 4 x Tide , 2 x Wave , 3 x Bay , Fort Vic & Argus we need 805 RFA crew and to 1.5 crew all ships would be 1200 out of 1830 staff so for me it is not crew that is the problem but money to run the ships

Not sure. Even if it is money, RFA will never employ surplus crew, when they lack money. As you know, significant fraction of operation cost is the crew costs.

I still do not understand why you think 1800 is enough for all the RFA tasks. Fraction of crew is always small in maritime organization. Of course, RFA has plenty of works to do at shore. I think we do not need to think there is any trick. Simply, RFA lack man-power, as they say. Also they do not have enough money so they cannot increase salary to keep the retention rate.

I see no inconsistency here. No crew AND no money.

Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:58 So what is interesting is to man all the current RFA ships would take 805 crew out of a current staff of 1830

Skills.

It clearly states on the RFA recruitment page that their crew get 3 months leave for every 4 months on board, then factor in training courses, sickness unscheduled leave etc and you u will need 805 x 2 = 1610 out of 1830 total personnel. That only leaves 220 to provide headquarters support. By most standards that is a lean operation.

There is moving scale here in 2010 there was 2300 in 2014 it was 1840 and 2019 in was 1940 and now we are back to 1830

I am lost by this constant assertion that current man power numbers should dictate the size and shape of the RN or RFA.

A change in policy and/or Government could transform terms and conditions, accommodation standards or pension contributions virtually instantaneously if the political will existed.

Increasing recruitment and retention rates is not impossible or implausible and basing the shape and size of the RN or RFA fleets on current personnel rates is not credible analysis IMO.

Just my opinion.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑27 Jan 2023, 21:32 I am lost by this constant assertion that current man power numbers should dictate the size and shape of the RN or RFA.

A change in policy and/or Government could transform terms and conditions, accommodation standards or pension contributions virtually instantaneously if the political will existed.

Increasing recruitment and retention rates is not impossible or implausible and basing the shape and size of the RN or RFA fleets on current personnel rates is not credible analysis IMO.

Totally true, in this case. But, that costs a lot. You need to increase everyone's salary to do that. So, 10% increase in man-power MAY cost 20% increase in man-power cost.

RFA is operated typically with £170M/year. Man power cost, I do not know, but surely more than 50% of the total. (If £50k per person x1800 = £90M. And, pension and other money must be added). For simplicity, let's assume now RFA is using £100M/year for man power.

To increase the number by 20% (360, to provide 150 crew for the 3rd FSSS and 30 crew total for MROSS and MHC-OSV (not enough already...)), you need £20M/yr more? No, even more. To improve the number, you need to improve the salary. So, how about increasing it by 10%? Then you need £32M/yr. RFA/RN vessels are typically used for 30 years (or more). Multiply £32 by 30 gives us £960M.

If a T31 costs £270M, doubling it to include through-life its support/maintenance costs gives £540 (through life cost). Then, £960M means "nearly two T31s".

Let's assume T32 cost similar to T31 (say, T31-mod option)

"Cut two T31-mod frigates" to improve RFA man-power by 20% to operate the 3rd FSSS, MROSS and MHC-OSV.

Of course, there are many assumptions here. But, not that far. Man power costs a lot.

But still, I personally think, 20% more man-power in RFA is much important than two "T32" (if it be T31-mod). RN/RFA needs more ships? Yes, but not ships in paper, but ships actively working.

ref: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... 7.278613.h