The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

It only appears so because some of the ships they are replacing have already been retired. Each of the four Leaf class tankers in service until 2008/2009 had a cargo capacity of at least 28,000t vs the 19,000t of MARS FT. Oakleaf's was significantly larger, and this doesn't include the Rovers (which wouldn't add much...).

I see less logistics capacity, not more.

The Leaf's could RAS but were mainly about trunking bulk fuel. It always surpised me why newer ships like Fort II went and yet Rovers were retained, I came to the conclusion they must have been a useful size. 18k seems an attractive size, increased size and able to comfortable manage a Merlin/hangered. Maybe 4 x 18k & 2 x 37k, but 4 x 37k looks like an early sale as we have seen with a Bay (I actually quite like that when it secured UK jobs, but not South Korean).

On the jobs front I would like to clarify:

1, Ship building jobs are cheaper to create than most other MOD created jobs. This is not about money to UK industry, (so the £150m in to UK companies is less important as manual jobs outside SE)
2, Are in the toughest locations (easy to create jobs in SE) Plymouth can't even sustain keeping open an airport!!
3, Have the opportunity to "spin the wheel" rebuild capability lost years ago. (18k tonners not 37k but it could lead there if the Government bullied BP a bit)
4, Help to maintain the RN's business case with the UK Public and Government

MARS may not be a big PR disaster as the Labour party was planning anyway and some UK spend has been retained, but it could have been a big PR success. The RN complains the UK is "sea blind" well I look at decision like this and ask what are they doing to stop it?

 

[Anixtu]

The Leaf's could RAS but were mainly about trunking bulk fuel.

Myth.

Leafs were originally conceived as "support tankers" to move fuel forward from depots to the frontline "fleet tankers". In reality, they were used to support task groups and station deployments and as general liquid replenishment workhorses. There were never enough Fleet Tankers to go round.

Fort George was ditched because we no longer have aircraft carriers for her to support (which has been the new Forts primary task, also not what they were designed for), and because the new Forts are disproportionately expensive to run. Cutting the two remaining Rovers would have saved a lot less in running costs than saying goodbye to Fort George. Rovers really are too small. They always were, the original design for the Rover class was larger, but was shortened to save a little on construction costs.

Buying two different designs means paying the development costs for two different designs. It'd probably be cheaper just to buy six of the MARS FT than 2+4. There are definite economies of scale involved, and a ship half the size does not cost half as much.

 

[1805]

Myth.

Leafs were originally conceived as "support tankers" to move fuel forward from depots to the frontline "fleet tankers". In reality, they were used to support task groups and station deployments and as general liquid replenishment workhorses. There were never enough Fleet Tankers to go round.

Fort George was ditched because we no longer have aircraft carriers for her to support (which has been the new Forts primary task, also not what they were designed for), and because the new Forts are disproportionately expensive to run. Cutting the two remaining Rovers would have saved a lot less in running costs than saying goodbye to Fort George. Rovers really are too small. They always were, the original design for the Rover class was larger, but was shortened to save a little on construction costs.

Buying two different designs means paying the development costs for two different designs. It'd probably be cheaper just to buy six of the MARS FT than 2+4. There are definite economies of scale involved, and a ship half the size does not cost half as much.

Agree on the Rovers, but they are nearer the right size than then 37k and x 4 what are these ships (and the Waves) going to do? The design of these ships (in fact the who cost of this programme even if done in the UK would be relatively low cost in relation to work created).

The issue is the RN can not continue to operate without a Government/Popular mandate, yes the public like the RN and the historic past put most do not see it as relevant to their lives.

I suspect this may all change when the BBC screen Sailor II and show a F35 launch from the newly commissioned Ark Royal (ex POW) and the public can visibly see what all the fuss was about....not a day the RAF will look forward to even if it's an RAF pilot (which I am sure it will be).

If the RN can say for evey £1m we spend we create X jobs and generate 3 time that spend in exports, supporting even more job.

I accept there is an immediate requirement for RFA replacement now, so order 2 x c18-20t now. With the Waves that is probably sufficient until the a operation CVF turns up post 2020? Build them as efficiently as possible (one yard no rationing & shipping round the country etc) and then refine and build a production batch. Quietly sell the early version at discounts to reflect the social cost of UK production to friendly navies (NZ, Portugal, South American all look like option over the next 10 years?).

 

[Anixtu]

Having served on a Wave (c. 16,000CZ cargo) supporting coalition operations, they aren't big enough. A large tanker can support fleet deployments, singleton deployments and standing tasks, but a small tanker can barely support a singleton deployment and is totally unsuited to the larger standing tasks. These small tankers in foreign navies that you refer to are forces that have no ambition to send task groups overseas. Most of them rarely, if ever, send their tankers halfway around the world. We do it all the time.

Tell me how you intend to maintain the four standing commitments (APT(N), APT(S), AGRT, FOST) with four tankers in service whilst having sufficient spare capacity to cover refits, contingencies and RFTG deployments? The last Leaf is on the way out, she'll probably be FOST tanker for the rest of her career because we can't send her overseas. The Rovers are on rotation to APT(S) for a similar reason. The Waves are unable to simultaneously deploy to AGRT and APT(N) whilst also maintaining refit schedule. Hence gaps are already appearing, usually APT(N).

I don't really want to get into the politics of addressing your socialist reasoning on why they should be built in the UK.

Edit - I can't entirely resist:

What are you going to do about the three solid stores ships that are needed by 2020 to support CVF operations and replace the Forts? Are you going to further delay building the tankers that we need yesterday to build the ships that we must have tomorrow? Or are you going to accept more capability gaps? The constant delays to MARS over the last decade have backed procurement of RFAs into a corner. Diligence and Argus need replacing in one form or another by 2020 too, or we accept the loss of those capabilities.

The time to place these orders in UK yards was the early-mid 2000s when both the need for the ships and the capacity and capability to build them still existed in the UK. Swan Hunters were still in business (just) and Harland & Wolff were still in the shipbuilding business having completed work on the Bays and Points respectively. That time has passed.

 

[StobieWan]

Having served on a Wave (c. 16,000CZ cargo) supporting coalition operations, they aren't big enough. A large tanker can support fleet deployments, singleton deployments and standing tasks, but a small tanker can barely support a singleton deployment and is totally unsuited to the larger standing tasks. These small tankers in foreign navies that you refer to are forces that have no ambition to send task groups overseas. Most of them rarely, if ever, send their tankers halfway around the world. We do it all the time.

Tell me how you intend to maintain the four standing commitments (APT(N), APT(S), AGRT, FOST) with four tankers in service whilst having sufficient spare capacity to cover refits, contingencies and RFTG deployments? The last Leaf is on the way out, she'll probably be FOST tanker for the rest of her career because we can't send her overseas. The Rovers are on rotation to APT(S) for a similar reason. The Waves are unable to simultaneously deploy to AGRT and APT(N) whilst also maintaining refit schedule. Hence gaps are already appearing, usually APT(N).

I don't really want to get into the politics of addressing your socialist reasoning on why they should be built in the UK.

Edit - I can't entirely resist:

What are you going to do about the three solid stores ships that are needed by 2020 to support CVF operations and replace the Forts? Are you going to further delay building the tankers that we need yesterday to build the ships that we must have tomorrow? Or are you going to accept more capability gaps? The constant delays to MARS over the last decade have backed procurement of RFAs into a corner. Diligence and Argus need replacing in one form or another by 2020 too, or we accept the loss of those capabilities.

Fab post - very informative - thanks

I meant to ask why the Forts were disproportionately expensive to run ?

Again, it's been very informative - I don't think many people understand how incredibly important this order is - if we don't get these in the numbers and capability needed, we're effectively out of the blue water navy game. We do not have time to screw around on this order.

Better to spend the money saved on responsibly sourcing these tankers on directly targeted urban renewal, or reduce our deficit. Either is better than funding make-work programs with no commercial future.

Ian

 

[Anixtu]

I meant to ask why the Forts were disproportionately expensive to run ?

I'm not sure of the exact details but they supposedly took 40% of the RFA maintenance budget between them, leaving the other 60% to be divided between the fourteen other units (at that time). They are certainly larger and more complex than any other RFA, whilst not being very good tankers (small capacity, about what 1805 wants for MARS FT) or very capacious stores ships (old Forts carry more, hence they are being retained).

 

[1805]

Having served on a Wave (c. 16,000CZ cargo) supporting coalition operations, they aren't big enough. A large tanker can support fleet deployments, singleton deployments and standing tasks, but a small tanker can barely support a singleton deployment and is totally unsuited to the larger standing tasks. These small tankers in foreign navies that you refer to are forces that have no ambition to send task groups overseas. Most of them rarely, if ever, send their tankers halfway around the world. We do it all the time.

Tell me how you intend to maintain the four standing commitments (APT(N), APT(S), AGRT, FOST) with four tankers in service whilst having sufficient spare capacity to cover refits, contingencies and RFTG deployments? The last Leaf is on the way out, she'll probably be FOST tanker for the rest of her career because we can't send her overseas. The Rovers are on rotation to APT(S) for a similar reason. The Waves are unable to simultaneously deploy to AGRT and APT(N) whilst also maintaining refit schedule. Hence gaps are already appearing, usually APT(N).

I don't really want to get into the politics of addressing your socialist reasoning on why they should be built in the UK.

Edit - I can't entirely resist:

What are you going to do about the three solid stores ships that are needed by 2020 to support CVF operations and replace the Forts? Are you going to further delay building the tankers that we need yesterday to build the ships that we must have tomorrow? Or are you going to accept more capability gaps? The constant delays to MARS over the last decade have backed procurement of RFAs into a corner. Diligence and Argus need replacing in one form or another by 2020 too, or we accept the loss of those capabilities.

The time to place these orders in UK yards was the early-mid 2000s when both the need for the ships and the capacity and capability to build them still existed in the UK. Swan Hunters were still in business (just) and Harland & Wolff were still in the shipbuilding business having completed work on the Bays and Points respectively. That time has passed.

I was suggesting building 6 tankers, I only talked about building 2 now due to the immediate need to replace some of the elderly RFA. I can live with capability gaps here, it seems far less risky than some of the others the RN have accepted. In fact a steady flow of work provided by 6 18-20,000t ships following on by similar logistics ships etc.

I am no socialist, but I resent paying taxes to keep people idol, only to then need to lock them up at further expense.

This might in some way support a case for the RN; there is no need for any RFAs, if you don't have a Navy.

I agree with you completely that it would have been better to have built the ships when they were need and we had the capacity but that time is gone.

I am not sure if these new ships are multi role/dry stores aswell, but if not I assume you are comfortable with these being built in South Korea aswell....and then LPD....where does it end?

To clarify I would have built 6 of something multi role like the Berlin Class:

built:[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_class_replenishment_ship"]Berlin class replenishment ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[swerve]

I accept there is an immediate requirement for RFA replacement now, so order 2 x c18-20t now. With the Waves that is probably sufficient until the a operation CVF turns up post 2020? Build them as efficiently as possible (one yard no rationing & shipping round the country etc) and then refine and build a production batch.

Which yard do you think these ships should be built in? Do tell. I'm struggling to think of a UK yard which could build such a ship without a few years lead time to refurbish the yard, hire in a cadre of skilled staff from overseas, & use them to train up enough locals to do the work.

The capacity isn't there. There is the potential to rebuild it, but that would take years, and a lot of money. If you want a long-term shipbuilding regeneration plan, then fine - but don't mix it up with the immediate needs & current funding of the RN/RFA. Fund it, do it - and then let those regenerated shipyards bid for work, when (or rather, if, because it ain't going to happen) they're in a state to do so.

 

[StobieWan]

I was suggesting building 6 tankers, I only talked about building 2 now due to the immediate need to replace some of the elderly RFA. I can live with capability gaps here, it seems far less risky than some of the others the RN have accepted. In fact a steady flow of work provided by 6 18-20,000t ships following on by similar logistics ships etc.

I am no socialist, but I resent paying taxes to keep people idol, only to then need to lock them up at further expense.

This might in some way support a case for the RN; there is no need for any RFAs, if you don't have a Navy.

I agree with you completely that it would have been better to have built the ships when they were need and we had the capacity but that time is gone.

I am not sure if these new ships are multi role/dry stores aswell, but if not I assume you are comfortable with these being built in South Korea aswell....and then LPD....where does it end?

To clarify I would have built 6 of something multi role like the Berlin Class:

built:Berlin class replenishment ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are dry stores as well - that's why they have a whacking great helipad at the back so they can simultaneously refuel a carrier, plus an escort sucking on the tit on the other side, and chuck out all the dry niceness via helicopter - they look to be a pretty hefty kit and yes, without them at that size and without at least four of them you can kiss goodbye to the RN being anything like a blue water force.

So, more capable than the Berlin in terms of their primary role of replenishment underway, but without the secondary functions of the Berlin in terms of hospital facilities etc.

Thing is, the Germany Navy isn't in any sense comparable with the Royal Navy in terms of reach and presence so you're back to the old chestnut of comparing oranges with wheelbarrows.


We need 'em now, today, or better, last week. This is a Good Thing for the RN.

Ian

 

[swerve]

The RN would probably be better offering up the later exit ships: Kent (I think still in refit at Rosyth), Portland & St Alban's for sale once they have CAMM fitted, this will support an early export for the new system, whilst helping to ensure an timely construction scheduled for T26 and keep the RN in the driving seat.

NOOO!!!!! Selling a ship secondhand is always at a discount. You never, ever, get back the cost of upgrades or modernisation. It is always better to sell the ship as is, & offer any upgrade as an option at extra cost.

Some customers won't really want your shiny new missiles, radar, etc. anyway, as they'd rather do their own standard upgrade, as already applied to or scheduled for current ships, & so will only be willing to buy your upgraded ships if they're cheap enough to make up for the extra logistics costs of a mixed fleet, adaptations so that your new CMS (or those parts you're willing to sell) can talk to the rest of the fleet, etc.. Those for who your new system is all whizz-bang super-dooper new stuff probably can't afford to pay what it's worth.

No. Absolutely not. If you're going to sell them, don't waste money on upgrades in advance. Offer that as part of the package, to be paid for by the customer, on top of the base price of the ship, & to be tailored to their requirements.

 

[StobieWan]

NOOO!!!!! Selling a ship secondhand is always at a discount. You never, ever, get back the cost of upgrades or modernisation. It is always better to sell the ship as is, & offer any upgrade as an option at extra cost.

Some customers won't really want your shiny new missiles, radar, etc. anyway, as they'd rather do their own standard upgrade, as already applied to or scheduled for current ships, & so will only be willing to buy your upgraded ships if they're cheap enough to make up for the extra logistics costs of a mixed fleet, adaptations so that your new CMS (or those parts you're willing to sell) can talk to the rest of the fleet, etc.. Those for who your new system is all whizz-bang super-dooper new stuff probably can't afford to pay what it's worth.

No. Absolutely not. If you're going to sell them, don't waste money on upgrades in advance. Offer that as part of the package, to be paid for by the customer, on top of the base price of the ship, & to be tailored to their requirements.

Also, T26 is reliant on pulling through Artisan and CAMM plus any of the 2087 systems fitted to the new build T26. Flogging off ships with that stuff fitted buggers up the very cost efficient program the RN has come up with to upgrade 23, then build Type 26.


So, by doing that, you'd be increasing costs on Type 26...bad..

 

[1805]

Also, T26 is reliant on pulling through Artisan and CAMM plus any of the 2087 systems fitted to the new build T26. Flogging off ships with that stuff fitted buggers up the very cost efficient program the RN has come up with to upgrade 23, then build Type 26.


So, by doing that, you'd be increasing costs on Type 26...bad..

Well if you had read the post, you would understand it was anticipating a reduction of frigates and recommending selling the 3 ships which have the furthest decommissioning dates to ensure the T26 construction was not delayed.

Therefore the kit from the T23 would not be needed. You think there will be no reduction of frigate number over the next 11 years....has there been such a period over in the last 50 years when numbers have not reduced?

 

[1805]

NOOO!!!!! Selling a ship secondhand is always at a discount. You never, ever, get back the cost of upgrades or modernisation. It is always better to sell the ship as is, & offer any upgrade as an option at extra cost.

Some customers won't really want your shiny new missiles, radar, etc. anyway, as they'd rather do their own standard upgrade, as already applied to or scheduled for current ships, & so will only be willing to buy your upgraded ships if they're cheap enough to make up for the extra logistics costs of a mixed fleet, adaptations so that your new CMS (or those parts you're willing to sell) can talk to the rest of the fleet, etc.. Those for who your new system is all whizz-bang super-dooper new stuff probably can't afford to pay what it's worth.

No. Absolutely not. If you're going to sell them, don't waste money on upgrades in advance. Offer that as part of the package, to be paid for by the customer, on top of the base price of the ship, & to be tailored to their requirements.

I would agree if you were doing the cheapest option, then the best route would be to sell the three oldest with least value, delay T26 production, maybe even source the hulls form South Korea.

All the points are very relevant any actually why I was suggesting selling with CAMM for that very reason. This would not only be an opportunity to get a reasonable price for the ships but convert their navy to CAMM. Imagine selling to Chile offering and tying in the upgrade of their existing 3 T23s.

 

[1805]

Which yard do you think these ships should be built in? Do tell. I'm struggling to think of a UK yard which could build such a ship without a few years lead time to refurbish the yard, hire in a cadre of skilled staff from overseas, & use them to train up enough locals to do the work.

The capacity isn't there. There is the potential to rebuild it, but that would take years, and a lot of money. If you want a long-term shipbuilding regeneration plan, then fine - but don't mix it up with the immediate needs & current funding of the RN/RFA. Fund it, do it - and then let those regenerated shipyards bid for work, when (or rather, if, because it ain't going to happen) they're in a state to do so.

There is capacity to build a ship similar to the Berlin class, you are right it would probably require some investment and it should all have been done before when H&W was still in business. But a good case could still be created with other government departments, and the difference here is if managed well it could create export potential. If there was RN focus on an industrial strategy (before anyone says the ACA is an industrial strategy is was simply a rationing job to put off painful desicions).

All is not rosie in the garden, you imply the industry is at full capacity for now and into the distant future:

1,500 BAE jobs threatened at Portsmouth shipyard | Business | The Guardian


The Uk could support a healthy shipbuilding and operating industry, it would require some political effort, maybe some tax incentives on investment, good will from Unions, and some creative subsidies, most important of all the leadership to pull it together....

It would be a real feather in their cap if it was the RN that provided the leadership, and help the politicans understand the value of the RN more (one of the biggest problems the faced in 2010). Maybe enabling an easier ride/freer funding.

 

[Anixtu]

They are dry stores as well - that's why they have a whacking great helipad at the back so they can simultaneously refuel a carrier, plus an escort sucking on the tit on the other side, and chuck out all the dry niceness via helicopter...

Not really. Not if they are used in the same way as the current "dry stores capable" Leafs, Rovers and Waves. The Leafs had the least capability, but Orangeleaf has a container deck aft for three reefers. Usually occupied by unrefrigerated containers carrying random ship's stores, gym equipment, etc. Likewise the Rovers are designated AOR(L), and even have heavy jackstay RAS rigs for issuing dry stores (which Waves and MARS FT don't), but their hold for dry stores carries ship's junk, as do the Waves. The container farm up forward on the Waves tends to become occupied with other stuff, maybe a couple of reefers to extend ship's own endurance, but things like boats, pontoons, etc. It's a handy bit of open deck with nice twistlock and lashing points.

A few folk on discussion fora have emphasised this theoretical dry stores capability, but I can guarantee you won't see much sign of it in real life. If the need to use it arose, then I'm sure the ships would be reorganised to use it, but it is important not to make too much of it.

The flight deck and hangar are there more for "force multiplier" value, stuff like counter-narcotics, counter-piracy, other maritime security ops and if carrying a Merlin to have some degree of organic ASW capability or to contribute such to a task force, although that's another theoretical, a bit like dry stores.

 

[StobieWan]

Not really. Not if they are used in the same way as the current "dry stores capable" Leafs, Rovers and Waves. The Leafs had the least capability, but Orangeleaf has a container deck aft for three reefers. Usually occupied by unrefrigerated containers carrying random ship's stores, gym equipment, etc. Likewise the Rovers are designated AOR(L), and even have heavy jackstay RAS rigs for issuing dry stores (which Waves and MARS FT don't), but their hold for dry stores carries ship's junk, as do the Waves. The container farm up forward on the Waves tends to become occupied with other stuff, maybe a couple of reefers to extend ship's own endurance, but things like boats, pontoons, etc. It's a handy bit of open deck with nice twistlock and lashing points.

A few folk on discussion fora have emphasised this theoretical dry stores capability, but I can guarantee you won't see much sign of it in real life. If the need to use it arose, then I'm sure the ships would be reorganised to use it, but it is important not to make too much of it.

The flight deck and hangar are there more for "force multiplier" value, stuff like counter-narcotics, counter-piracy, other maritime security ops and if carrying a Merlin to have some degree of organic ASW capability or to contribute such to a task force, although that's another theoretical, a bit like dry stores.

Ah, okay - serves me right for reading the PR So, more a case of being a lilly pad for Merlin etc than anything else?

 

[Anixtu]

Ah, okay - serves me right for reading the PR So, more a case of being a lilly pad for Merlin etc than anything else?

I've generally skimmed the press releases and stuff (had to laugh that the "RFA" in the background of the main MoD release was actually a US tanker), so I might have missed something, but most of the solid stores talk that I have noticed focuses on the ISO container capability. It does exist, as on the Waves (with a lift to the flight deck), so should not be entirely dismissed, but is rarely if ever used for replenishment purposes, at least in part because during routine peacetime operations there is no pressure to do so.

Lily pad operations specifically refers to extending the operating range of a helicopter based elsewhere, MARS FT will be able to fully support its own aircraft to at least the standard of FF/DD, as Waves and Forts do.

 

[StobieWan]

I've generally skimmed the press releases and stuff (had to laugh that the "RFA" in the background of the main MoD release was actually a US tanker), so I might have missed something, but most of the solid stores talk that I have noticed focuses on the ISO container capability. It does exist, as on the Waves (with a lift to the flight deck), so should not be entirely dismissed, but is rarely if ever used for replenishment purposes, at least in part because during routine peacetime operations there is no pressure to do so.

Lily pad operations specifically refers to extending the operating range of a helicopter based elsewhere, MARS FT will be able to fully support its own aircraft to at least the standard of FF/DD, as Waves and Forts do.

I guess I'm just happy someone greenlit MARS to the extent they did - I was having visions of an RN unable to support the carrier and other commitments we already have. I might be reaching but I'm seeing recent developments as an indicator we're getting some place.

 

[swerve]

I would agree if you were doing the cheapest option, then the best route would be to sell the three oldest with least value, delay T26 production, maybe even source the hulls form South Korea.

All the points are very relevant any actually why I was suggesting selling with CAMM for that very reason. This would not only be an opportunity to get a reasonable price for the ships but convert their navy to CAMM. Imagine selling to Chile offering and tying in the upgrade of their existing 3 T23s.

The Armada de Chile's already fitted Barak to Almirante Williams (ex HMS Sheffield) in place of Sea Wolf, according to its website. Why wouldn't they carry on with Barak?

You need to look at what the customer is already doing, & is likely to want, not just what you want to sell to them. Chile already has too many types of missiles on its ships. It's not likely to want to introduce a new type unless it's either very cheap (e.g. already fitted to a ship which is being sold off cheap), or offers tremendous advantages over everything that's already in the inventory.

 

[swerve]

There is capacity to build a ship similar to the Berlin class, you are right it would probably require some investment and it should all have been done before when H&W was still in business. But a good case could still be created with other government departments, and the difference here is if managed well it could create export potential. If there was RN focus on an industrial strategy (before anyone says the ACA is an industrial strategy is was simply a rationing job to put off painful desicions).

All is not rosie in the garden, you imply the industry is at full capacity for now and into the distant future:

1,500 BAE jobs threatened at Portsmouth shipyard | Business | The Guardian

Who said anything about full capacity? I asked which yard you thought could build these tankers. You haven't answered that question.

Note that being able to start building them in a few years time, after expanding the workforce & building or refurbishing facilities, is not an acceptable answer. BMT expects the first of the current order to be in service with the RFA in 2016.

The Berlin class doesn't have the capacity to support the carriers we're building. It looks like a fine ship - for Germany, or any other country with no warships bigger than a destroyer, & which needs multi-purpose support ships for replenishment of all kinds of liquids & dry stores, medical support, etc.