UK Defence Forum

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Moving over to Amphib thread

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.