RFA Fort Victoria

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks jensy. Rather odd not having a symetrical deck. Must have had fun operating 5 Merlins.

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:Daresay you could change the layout and get landing spots for three smaller medium helicopters.
Use yellow and white; for overlapping markings?
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Looks like her hangar is tight with 3 Merlins?


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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Lord Jim »

Lets hope the experiences gathered by Victoria are passed to the FSS team to ensure the aviation facilities at least equal hers and are maybe enhanced to allow the operation of UAVs in addition to 3 "Medium" Helicopters.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Jensy »

Hopefully everyone onboard is safe and the damage is minor:


Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Poiuytrewq »

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacScimitar54

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by tomuk »

Repulse wrote: 28 Apr 2019, 09:27 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 the two Wave class oilers laid up in extended readiness if we need more tankers EOS or elsewhere. We also have five T31 on order so need for more Rivers of batches 2 3 or 4 either.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

Why comment on a post from almost 4 years ago through today's eyes

I for one think that a naval force of a Bay , Fort Vic + 2 x type 31 with a re-enforced company of RM and 6 helicopters would be a good thing in the Indo-Pacific and if the Bay was replaced by a flattop MRSS down the line even better

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Dec 2022, 09:42 Why comment on a post from almost 4 years ago through today's eyes

I for one think that a naval force of a Bay , Fort Vic + 2 x type 31 with a re-enforced company of RM and 6 helicopters would be a good thing in the Indo-Pacific and if the Bay was replaced by a flattop MRSS down the line even better
Currently we only have the one stores ship to cover both carriers. When the 3*FSS are complete and in active service, then we can afford to advance deploy one to support T31's / River B2's in the Indo Pacific.

Until then we need to use Fort Victoria sparingly as will need to be available for when we deploy either of the carriers outside of the Atlantic when they will need the additional stores e.g. next year's CSG to Indo Pacific.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

No one would dream of sending Fort Vic off to the Indo- Pacific until the first 2 SSS are in service but once the first 2 SSS are in service then giving fort Vic 1 last refit and sending her off EoS as part of that group would be a good thing

What we are seeing from our allies in the Indo-Pacific is a Frigate and tanker team deployed we have seen from Canada and NZ

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

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 09:43 No one would dream of sending Fort Vic off to the Indo- Pacific until the first 2 SSS are in service but once the first 2 SSS are in service then giving fort Vic 1 last refit and sending her off EoS as part of that group would be a good thing

What we are seeing from our allies in the Indo-Pacific is a Frigate and tanker team deployed we have seen from Canada and NZ
This for me is where eventually replacing the Waves with a pair of Karel Doorman’s would work really well.
It give us both solid and liquid stores replenishment out side of the carrier force long with a vessel that can carry and operate 2 chinooks or 6 Merlin’s as part of a group.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 Maximise commonality with the Tides.
Or whatever the MRSS becomes?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Guys.... Cannot be so optimistic. What I am concerned is the man power. RFA currently mans 9 vessels;
- 1 Argus
- 1 Fort Victoria
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides (I'm afraid maybe 3. But lest "hope" it is 4)

If the 1st FSS comes, and want to keep Fort Vic active, then RFA need to disband one of their vessels. Disbanding Argus ? (or putting one of the Tides into extended readiness. Bays will not be candidates). And if the 2nd FSS comes, RFA need to disband Fort Victoria to man it. What if the 3rd FSS come? Maybe the 3rd FSS will be in extended readiness.

Then, we have a fleet of,
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness
- Argus

OR
- 3 FSSS (1 to replace Argus)
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness

OR
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoS

As said for me MRSS should be a 200 x 35 meter flattop capable of operating helicopters and long range UAV's like the GA Mojave

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 13:17 Guys.... Cannot be so optimistic. What I am concerned is the man power. RFA currently mans 9 vessels;
- 1 Argus
- 1 Fort Victoria
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides (I'm afraid maybe 3. But lest "hope" it is 4)

If the 1st FSS comes, and want to keep Fort Vic active, then RFA need to disband one of their vessels. Disbanding Argus ? (or putting one of the Tides into extended readiness. Bays will not be candidates). And if the 2nd FSS comes, RFA need to disband Fort Victoria to man it. What if the 3rd FSS come? Maybe the 3rd FSS will be in extended readiness.

Then, we have a fleet of,
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness
- Argus

OR
- 3 FSSS (1 to replace Argus)
- 3 Bays
- 3 Tides + 1 Tide in extended readiness

OR
- 2 FSSS + 1 FSSS in extended readiness
- 3 Bays
- 4 Tides
The way I see it ending up is

4 x Tides with 3 crews
3 x SSS with 2 crews
4 x MRSS with 4 crews

but I would hope the RFA could find another 160 crew to man the 4th Tide plus as said add another as detailed above

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 13:36
Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoS

As said for me MRSS should be a 200 x 35 meter flattop capable of operating helicopters and long range UAV's like the GA Mojave
You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriers

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 14:45 You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriers
I would have agreed with that a few years ago but with the proliferation of long range drones and their importance going forward the traditional ship types will have to change.

Current planning will have to catch up with the lightning fast technological advances on the modern battlefield.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 14:45
Tempest414 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 13:36
Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 My preference would be for a pair of oiler/reefers based on the Aegir-26 version of HNMoS Maude (an Aegir-18R), with about one-third of its fuel capacity given over to dry stores. It would also need aviation facilities similar to Ft Victoria (maybe four Merlin capability instead of three). Maximise commonality with the Tides.
I would agree but say one more Tide class configured as above 1/3 dry stores with this ship forward based EoS

As said for me MRSS should be a 200 x 35 meter flattop capable of operating helicopters and long range UAV's like the GA Mojave
You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriers
I don't want a Mistral or Ocean type ship I want a Osumi / Dokdo mix of ship and it is the ship we need going forward anything else is a cop out

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by SW1 »

If you want a to put a great big for sale sign on the carriers go ahead.

We spent a decade building a very flexible amphibious construct centred on a vessel very similar in size HMS ocean. Instead of embracing and doubling down on that we changed tack orphaned the amphibious force and the marines and are now busying running round wondering how it we reconfigure to make something work.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 15:09
SW1 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 14:45 You aren’t going to get a mistral or ocean as mrss ships that boat sailed when the navy decided the future was 70k carriers
I would have agreed with that a few years ago but with the proliferation of long range drones and their importance going forward the traditional ship types will have to change.

Current planning will have to catch up with the lightning fast technological advances on the modern battlefield.

Indeed I agree but that long range drone future has been know for some time it’s just the demonstration is now very public

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by BB85 »

The Mistral ships where less than $500m each and represent huge value for money. The Albion's have spent half their life on extended readiness while the Bayclass are used flat out. When it comes to their replacement they would be better ordering 3 LHDs with hospital facilities for disaster relief as they provide incredible flexibility for humanitarian and military roles.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

BB85 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 20:01 The Mistral ships where less than $500m each and represent huge value for money. The Albion's have spent half their life on extended readiness while the Bayclass are used flat out. When it comes to their replacement they would be better ordering 3 LHDs with hospital facilities for disaster relief as they provide incredible flexibility for humanitarian and military roles.
Why the Mistrals were so cheap, we need to know. I understand it adopts "merchant ship standard" in many aspects. I understand Mistral is a "LHD version of Bay class", not in the same standard as Albions.

Then, the point will be "do we need that high survivability standard of Albions or OK with that of Bays"? It shall have big debate. The latter may work, I agree.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 15:16 If you want a to put a great big for sale sign on the carriers go ahead.

We spent a decade building a very flexible amphibious construct centred on a vessel very similar in size HMS ocean. Instead of embracing and doubling down on that we changed tack orphaned the amphibious force and the marines and are now busying running round wondering how it we reconfigure to make something work.
It is this kind of piss poor thinking that rips through the heart of the MOD and the Navy

We can't have LHD's or LPH's as it will put the carriers at risk

We can't arm type 31 properly as it will put type 26 at risk

And so it goes on and on as long as we set a price cap of 500 million there is no reason why we can't have 4 Dukdo type LPH and keep the carriers as they do different jobs

P.S I think we should take this over to the Amphib thread now

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RFA Fort Victoria

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:37
Caribbean wrote: 14 Dec 2022, 12:20 Maximise commonality with the Tides.
Or whatever the MRSS becomes?
Indeed - another possibility
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply