RFA Fort Victoria

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

Clive F wrote:
Info source?
RFA Association Facebook and Navy look out twitter feed. Are saying DE&S are saying it but noting on their page

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by marktigger »

Caribbean wrote:
marktigger wrote:in modern naval warfare they need the ability to defend themselves
One of the major arguments for arming our auxiliaries is that a defended target is 30-40% less likely to be hit by an air-launched ASM, even if its not actively defending itself. This is because the attacking pilots have to assume that it WILL actively defend itself and therefore have to fly a sub-optimum attack.
A good argument and most ASM's can't self identify a target . Added to which ASM's that have been deflected by ECM, Chaff decoys etc still pose a threat.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Repulse »

The double hull work for RFA Victoria has been repeated in this month's Warship World. Apparently it was said by Robin Bouldy the MARS Tanker team lead.

Could this be the SSSs moving to the right?
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RFA Fort Victoria looking fantastic as refit by Cammell Laird nears completion.

(RRS Sir David Attenborough in the background looking good too)
image.jpg

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

The design with a few alterations would fit the bill for the SSS rather nicely

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by shark bait »

True. I expected a civilian hull would be the donor, but is there any reason why the starting point couldn't be Fort Victoria? If they could fit the Tides power and propulsion in it would make the perfect platform. (big aviation capacity too!)
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The design with a few alterations would fit the bill for the SSS rather nicely
To be fair the Mars SSS design that's been floating around for years looks very much like a modern fort Victoria just focused on solid stores.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Scimitar54 »

Something to do with the QEC's not being nuclear powered I should think :geek:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

That doesn't really make sense as the USN has had one stop support vessels for decades providing fuel and stores for both vessels and aircraft, form diesel to avgas, potatoes to paveways. An example would be the Sacremento class combat support ships, which combine the capabilities of a Stores ship, an Oiler, an Ammunition ship and a Cargo ship into one hull, and could support and operate three UH-46D Sea Knights. These vessels have supported both the USNs CVNS and CVs during their service lives.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Aethulwulf »

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?
It allows the QECs to replenish the fuel from a Tide on the port side while at the same time replenish the solid stores from a FSS on the starboard side, and thus minimise the total time undertaking RAS.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aethulwulf wrote: replenish the fuel from a Tide on the port side while at the same time replenish the solid stores from a FSS on the starboard side
I would imagine that the round-trips required for each type are different, too? Us not having quite as many bases to fall back upon as the USN has
- oilers vs. picking up missiles and other stuff that goes 'bang'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you a Sacremento class is over 50,000tones fully loaded!

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by shark bait »

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder why we didn't purchase three "One stop", replenishment vessels like the USN has for its carrier groups instead of separate fuel and stores platforms?
There's a paper floating around on this subject from BMT. They decided for a big fleet specialist vessels are the most effective option because the platforms are much closer to whats available from the commercial world.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:big fleet specialist vessels are the most effective option because the platforms are much closer to whats available from the commercial world
... and we will soon be able to see the difference in the unit costs, SSS vs a Tide, as the former are further removed from any civilian base design
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

Oh well relearning the skill sets to support a carrier group is another thing to add to the list then. We haven't done so since the 1970s era Ark Royal was tied up. Supporting a carrier doing the level of flight ops the QEs can is totally different from supporting one of the Invincibles.

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by shark bait »

The demand will be huge compared to the last decade of RFA activity, I expect they will need more people if the RN ever reach proper big carrier ops. (technical term)
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2903
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:Oh well relearning the skill sets to support a carrier group is another thing to add to the list then. We haven't done so since the 1970s era Ark Royal was tied up. Supporting a carrier doing the level of flight ops the QEs can is totally different from supporting one of the Invincibles.
Considering the number of F-35s that QE will carry for first 5-10 years, there will be plenty of time to learn that... :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Rambo
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Rambo »

Having a good peruse of Goole maps as you do and came across Fort Victoria (or is it Fort George) at Cammell Laird. I think this was circa 2010 when these images were taken. What suprised me is the Sea Wolf silo intact. I always assumed this was removed years ago. My question is how much work would it have taken to have Sea Wolf operating from this vessel? I guess the silo was put in during the build phase and never removed but i've never noticed it before. Also, i've not located the Sea Wolf directors. I guess she could be upgraded (unlikely) to carry CAMM if required.

edit: looking again i see both Fort Victoria and George at at Cammell laird together. George being in the wet dock looking sorry for itself as she was withdrawn by then. A mistake getting rid of her if you ask me.
Fort Victoria.jpg

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

They'll be reusing them on the Type 31's :D

Rambo
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 13 May 2015, 21:29

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Rambo »

An extra silo for T31 may save a couple of million. We’re going to need it!

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Gabriele »

Isn't it covered by a big white radome these days?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Gabriele wrote:Isn't it covered by a big white radome these days?
Yep, SatCom :thumbup:
image.jpg

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4699
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Repulse »

Currently Ft Victoria looks to have a OSD of 2023/24, but given recent comments on the value of “Oilers” then surely extending the lifespan of this particularly valuable vessel is a no brainer. RFA Argus is 10 years older and has a similar OSD, so a mid 2030s OSD should be possible.

I’d argue, regardless of the number of SSSs that are built for the CSGs (2 or 3), focusing Ft Victoria as a core of a EoS Littoral Task Group would give an asset that would actually allow a different thinking on the T31e, and actually just be a extension on what it has been up to for a number of years.

It already meets a number of the key requirements, including aviation facilities, RM accommodation, medical facilities and stores. I think with some relatively modest investment it could be a good solution: adding Artisan, activating and upgrading the 32 VLS to CAMM, addition of a couple of LCVPs on davits, and additional space for dry stores and light vehicles.

Combined with this I can then see a good fit with the B2 Rivers, who again with modest modifications could then act as Littoral Escorts to the ship. Each capable of hosting RMs and small boats.

Forward basing Ft Victoria and 3 B2 (or B3) Rivers out of Singapore would give a solid low key presence in the area (with a good self defence capability), supporting allies in low level interventions (like another East Timor or South Pacific).

I’d see the budget for this coming out of the T31 budget, leaving the 2 FLSS plans in place and the 2-3 SSSs. The EoS FLSS operating in the lower threat area of the Indian Ocean and East Africa.

Doing this would the make the T31 programme effectively the upgrade of Ft Victoria, the purchase of another T26 plus 4 more modest Sloops derived from the current B2 Rivers.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote: Ft Victoria looks to have a OSD of 2023/24, but given recent comments on the value of “Oilers” then surely extending the lifespan
Recent refit, yes
Repulse wrote:focusing Ft Victoria as a core of a EoS Littoral Task Group would give an asset
Would agree once there are two SSSs; what's that EoS, btw?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply