The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Summary, you *cannot* have enough tankers right now, no over ordering, move along with you...

I believe the Koreans had offered to knock out all four MARS in one hit but there's no way to absorb them into the RFA at that pace as you really want to be stepping down one and standing up t'other.

Where did I hear that the first Forts were disproportionately expensive to run ? This forum?

 

[RobWilliams]

If you've found a plausible figure please update Wikipedia. The Black and Gold Rover articles (at least, I haven't checked the others) are quite poor and whilst I can correct a lot of data, referencing it is more difficult.

Royal Navy - Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service - Fleet Tankers - n4a2 - Armed Forces

That's where I got it from. It's not a Rover to Bay error either as on Wiki the reference for the Bay's displacement is from Janes Fighting Ships.

Well, I'm more than happy to sit here with the knowledge that the RN website is wrong and point out the flaw - should someone else mention it that is

Not to mention that i've not got the faintest idea how to edit anything on Wiki at all.

See Gunline Spring 2012, page 2, Commodore Walworth's box: http://www.historicalrfa.org/component/weblinks/weblink/154-uncategorised/59-gunline-spring-2012

Good good

MARS SS isn't funded yet.

I know, but in comparison to other aspects of the RFA which need brushing up, it pretty much is 'sorted' in a sense that it's part of the sheduled program, needs replacing and a release is expected "in due course", compared to things like Argus and Diligence where we've heard sod all.

I believe the Koreans had offered to knock out all four MARS in one hit but there's no way to absorb them into the RFA at that pace as you really want to be stepping down one and standing up t'other.

I remember reading that too, although it's one of those things that i've not actually seen any material about so i'm not too sure about it. They probably could do them all in one go and the RFA would knock it back because of what you said, but i'm not 100% the offer was actually made. Though i'd love to be pointed in the right direction.

 

[1805]

It would not surprise me if they were expensive to run, the original concept was as a sort of mother ship to ASW frigate, that grew into the Type 23.

I don't think that discredits the multi purpose replenishment concept, although it would make sense that some are more tanker focused.

I guess the case could be made that you "can never have enough tankers"....as the RN will not order OPVs, they do make good offshore patrol ships and with their helicopters better armed than most escorts....lol.

Actually if you make them Rover size you could probably get 10 patrol tankers for the cost of a Type 26!

 

[Anixtu]

Where did I hear that the first Forts were disproportionately expensive to run ? This forum?

New Forts. From me, here or elsewhere. 40% of the RFA maintenance budget between them, when the RFA operated 16 ships.

I don't think that discredits the multi purpose replenishment concept,

The multi-product replenishment ship has merit - it works for the USN and it works for the French. Other navies don't deploy serious task groups over serious distances and therefore don't count. The USN can do it because 1) they make 'em BIG, 2) they have plenty of AOs to keep the AOEs topped up with fuel cargo (part of the original concept of Leaf class operations). Not sure about the French, but their sustainment concept is different from the RN's.

Actually if you make them Rover size you could probably get 10 patrol tankers for the cost of a Type 26!

Rovers are too small and inefficient in both crew and cargo capacity. They were fine when we needed small station tankers and for single ship deployments, and when the typical frigate was a Type 12 or a Leander. They aren't much use for replenishing large units that can drain them dry in a couple of RASes.

 

[1805]

Rovers are too small and inefficient in both crew and cargo capacity. They were fine when we needed small station tankers and for single ship deployments, and when the typical frigate was a Type 12 or a Leander. They aren't much use for replenishing large units that can drain them dry in a couple of RASes.

Sorry I was (semi) joking on the idea of 10 patrol tankers; The Admiralty is so scared of ordering OPV, in case it impacts frigate numbers, so they might consider building small tanker for the work. A 12,000t multi replenishment ship with a helicopter/hanger would be more efficient at constabulary work than a Wave or even a Bay, could do humanitarian work better than a frigate, and even act as a "Q" ship for pirates ;-)

 

[StobieWan]

New Forts. From me, here or elsewhere. 40% of the RFA maintenance budget between them, when the RFA operated 16 ships.

Thought it was - I tend to pay attention to anything you've got to say on the RFA side of stuff. I really should set up a onenote account and start pasting stuff into it from forums, kind of aggregate it all.

Brane...overloaded with facts...I wish I could pay this much attention to getting through my MCP exams

 

[StobieWan]

Sorry I was (semi) joking on the idea of 10 patrol tankers; The Admiralty is so scared of ordering OPV, in case it impacts frigate numbers, so they might consider building small tanker for the work. A 12,000t multi replenishment ship with a helicopter/hanger would be more efficient at constabulary work than a Wave or even a Bay, could do humanitarian work better than a frigate, and even act as a "Q" ship for pirates ;-)

The marginal cost of building a larger tanker compared to a small one is wiped out by the fact that they're so much more efficient to run so it'd make more sense to simply buy a few more of the big 'uns.

Until you get tankers so big they can't get into anything short of an oil terminal, the efficiencies are too compelling - the crew size doesn't change much, and they can spend more time on station giving gas as opposed to going other places to pick up more fuel.

 

[1805]

Use some logic here, a multi replenishment ship makes sense and the USN/MN the other blue water fleets use them. I don't have an issue with tankers with modest dry stores, as wet stores will always be the stuff in demand, but dry stores only, makes less sense.

The Fort II will have been expensive for some other reason: poor design/old design or more likely the demands of the additional role they were built for: command/helicopter support roles. Just from Wiki you can see the: crew/speed/helicopter facilities are all greater, reflecting the need to support a squadron of ASW frigates (without hangers) in the North Atlantic. But just merging the dry store capability to a tanker should mean cheaper running costs.

What would make more sense is 3-4 tankers and 3-4 multi replensihment ships.

Plus decent numbers of OPV, that would cut the demand for tankers anyway.

 

[1805]

The marginal cost of building a larger tanker compared to a small one is wiped out by the fact that they're so much more efficient to run so it'd make more sense to simply buy a few more of the big 'uns.

Until you get tankers so big they can't get into anything short of an oil terminal, the efficiencies are too compelling - the crew size doesn't change much, and they can spend more time on station giving gas as opposed to going other places to pick up more fuel.

I would not build 12,000t tankers that was the joke bit and the numbers; but, 2 x 20,000 are more useful than 1 x 40,000t because they can be in two places at once. This seems to be the optimum size for meduim sized navies. The crew cost would be greater, but we are talking small numbers. There is then a case for a bigger ship to support larger task forces, probably in the Tides class but multi replenishment ships.

I does seem the RN has an issues with multi role concepts generally, there are so many examples now.

I don't have the figures on fuel capacity/consumption to compare over the time that the Rovers have been in service, but it is interesting they have been retained in services when other larger ships have gone. Type 42/22s had poor ranges and I assume a low fuel consumption, logic would imply over a given time on station demands on tankers would now be less? Add to that numbers are at least half or less, almost uniformly across types for the fleet from the 80/90s to today.

Lack of a helicopter is an issues and size probably is to small, but 20,000t looks right.

 

[AegisFC]

A hypothetical 40,000 ton tanker will not cost the same as X2 hypothetical 20,000 ton tankers.
Steel is cheap, air is free and most of the really expensive bits (engineering plant, comms gear, ect) would be the same either on the larger or the smaller tanker, same with crewing.
Chances are if you can afford two smaller tankers you can also afford two larger ones that are more flexible.

Also remember that the RN isn't the only ones that use these ships, so the additional capacity is great for joint ops with allies.

 

[1805]

A hypothetical 40,000 ton tanker will not cost the same as X2 hypothetical 20,000 ton tankers.
Steel is cheap, air is free and most of the really expensive bits (engineering plant, comms gear, ect) would be the same either on the larger or the smaller tanker, same with crewing.
Chances are if you can afford two smaller tankers you can also afford two larger ones that are more flexible.

Also remember that the RN isn't the only ones that use these ships, so the additional capacity is great for joint ops with allies.

Agree completely on the economy of scale of larger ships, hence my view on mult replenishment ships, over 2 separate types. I also agree that bigger is not much more expensive and the value to other navies of RFAs, but there has to be an optimum balance between size/numbers (1 x 200,000t cheaper still!) and this is critical for the RN. A mix of 20,000t & 40,000t seems nearer where we should be. A 20,000 replacement is still a 70%+ increase on a Rover and inline with other navies.

 

[StobieWan]

But why build a 20Kt tanker when it doesn't offer much savings over a 40Kt tanker on purchase, and is about as expensive or perhaps more so over through life running costs? Same crew for both, give or take, same fixtures and fittings, same radar, nav etc.

Look, pretend we're running a car wash, and we need a bucket. We can get a bucket for £1.10 that holds five litres or a ten litre one for £1.20. The ten litre one holds enough water for three good washes, the five litre one does about a wash and a half. So, we buy a ten litre one. A bit later, business is booming and we need two buckets. What size should we buy ? Another ten litre one or a five litre one? For the additional cost compared to the versatility of the bigger bucket, I'd buy a ten litre one.

If you want two tankers, buy a pair, the same size, same class. And buy 'em big.

 

[Anixtu]

Same crew for both, give or take, same fixtures and fittings, same radar, nav etc.

The size of the ship has no real bearing on the size of the crew. A bigger ship does make it easier to accommodate more, and leaves room for augmentees, flight etc. A Leaf at c. 30,000m³ cargo has a crew of the same size as a Rover at c. 5000m³ cargo.

Crew size is driven by capability, especially how many things you want to do at once, and for how long. Waves with a larger crew can do more things simultaneously, or do them for more hours per day.

The upper size limit for a replenishment tanker is realistically driven by access to port facilities. 40,000t is a sensible size. It works for Leafs and Kaisers and the Tides are not too far off. Waves are a bit on the small side.

Use some logic here, a multi replenishment ship makes sense and the USN/MN the other blue water fleets use them.

The USN backs them up with a greater number of single-role ships.

 

[AegisFC]

Agree completely on the economy of scale of larger ships, hence my view on mult replenishment ships, over 2 separate types. I also agree that bigger is not much more expensive and the value to other navies of RFAs, but there has to be an optimum balance between size/numbers (1 x 200,000t cheaper still!) and this is critical for the RN. A mix of 20,000t & 40,000t seems nearer where we should be. A 20,000 replacement is still a 70%+ increase on a Rover and inline with other navies.

There is no point in mixing and matching.
A smaller tanker spends less time on station. A smaller tanker can perform less UNREPs. A smaller tanker has fewer individual fuel tanks and that reduces redundancy if one of the tanks gets contaminated (it happens, the recieving ship does testing before filling its own tanks during an UNREP to make sure the fuel hasn't been contaminated, and rejecting fuel does happen).

Crew size is driven by capability, especially how many things you want to do at once, and for how long. Waves with a larger crew can do more things simultaneously, or do them for more hours per day.

Yes but the "core" crew will be almost the same between a larger and smaller fleet tanker. Both will require just about the same number of snipes, twidgets and bridge watch standers.

 

[swerve]

Re the Rover class:

I've submitted a contact form via the RN website pointing out the error. I see that Gold Rover appears to have the correct displacement on Wiki. Only Grey Rover (scrapped) & Black Rover are wrong - but both have their other measurements correct.

By 'correct' I mean the same as the others of the class, which I presume is right.

The ships with the Bay class displacement were modified in August & September the year. The Gold Rover page was modified in May. It looks as if the RN website may have been messed up between May & September.

 

[RobWilliams]

There is no point in mixing and matching.
A smaller tanker spends less time on station. A smaller tanker can perform less UNREPs. A smaller tanker has fewer individual fuel tanks and that reduces redundancy if one of the tanks gets contaminated (it happens, the recieving ship does testing before filling its own tanks during an UNREP to make sure the fuel hasn't been contaminated, and rejecting fuel does happen).

Echoing my views here, the Tides - if the current costs (~£450mn for DSME and ~£150mn for British companies I think) - are still right that'd mean roughly a unit cost of £150mn per tanker, not bad at all in my opinion considering the capacity. I'd rather get a couple more of these (if the idea of getting more tankers was taken) than some other smaller class of tanker. The Tides have a nice capacity (~24,000m^3 i think, using BMT's figures for AEGIR 26 tanker design), the Waves are what 16,000m^3 I think from memory??

EDIT: Good man swerve!

EDIT #2: Attached an edited picture of the Type 26, what d'you guys reckon about stretching the VL missile "deck" and poking the gun futher forward to get a couple more VLS in there? Could get 36 more silos in there from my (admittedly VERY crude - but hope you get the idea) MS paint sketch, would help exportability too considering it'd mean greater VL capacity for other missiles and not having to rely on CAMM canisters?

Although I admit that in order for this to happen the RN would need more cells otherwise they'll hae lots of unused space

I do accept that my 'changes' aren't fully baked, like if there actually would be space to fit strike length Mk41 or A70 below deck considering what she's meant to hold anyway; cold launch single shorter canisters, or that it looks as though there'd be no clear space to move around fore of the gun when she's in action due to the marked 'no go' area taking up the width of the deck.

Just a thought

As a side note, sometimes you see computer generated ship drawings people have mocked up themselves, d'you guys know of something better than MS paint for this type of thing?

 

[Anixtu]

The Tides have a nice capacity (~24,000m^3 i think, using BMT's figures for AEGIR 26 tanker design), the Waves are what 16,000m^3 I think from memory??

Tides are 19,000CZ. Something in the configuration is different from Aegir-26.

 

[RobWilliams]

Probably the trade off for SSS capability, looking at BMT it's given other variations values for SSS capacity but not the 26.

Must be due to the 8 x 20' containers that they can carry. Must be more to it than that though surely?

I'd like to see a source for that value though, just to check , haven't really seen many official releases about it come to think of it.

 

[Anixtu]

The source for 19,000CZ is not online.

What SSS capability? Tides are straight tankers. Any theoretical dry stores capability is likely to be on the scale of a Wave: a wee hold that soon fills with ship's junk and space up forward for containers and deck cargo.

 

[RobWilliams]

Where did you get the number then? That means sweet FA to me otherwise i'm afraid. I could pluck numbers out of the air till the cows come home but I wouldn't expect people to take my word for it.

It has a capacity to store 8 x 20' containers on the deck at least and can replenish ships at sea from it, albeit in a limited way, like the Waves can. IMO that gives it a limited SSS capability, which you cannot deny it has. BMT even says it's got "Solid RAS reception up to 2te", bit redundant for a 'straight tanker' wouldn't you say.

Either way considering it has no bearing in internal fuel capacity I really couldn't care less about such a pedantic point.