Subscribe
Notify of
guest

139 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pacman27

seems a sensible approach to me, but why have the RAS ops room mid ship when it could be backward facing from the control room.

all in all we must do better than this, these ships really do need to be a solid stores version of the MRRS and the design needs to be able to translate into that class.

from this rendering I just don’t get that and we are looking at a fairly niche class of ships.

ATH

I disagree, these ships really must excel at their roll. The needs of stores warehousing, picking, packing and moving have to be paramount. As the article makes clear this basic hull and systems has, with a different superstructure and internal layout, scope to be the MRRS but the will of necessity be very different looking.

X

Are you saying these need to be more general in design so the base design can be used for other roles?

If so, no.

RAS ops room mid ship when it could be backward facing from the control room.

Control room? Backward facing?

ATH

As always with this class political/industrial/societal needs are likely to be seen as just as important as military needs. This is worrying in my opinion.
Given that it will likely take at least 18 months to get the first in class though all her test, trials, crew training and FOST and that these proposals are a long way from a complete detailed design the 2028 in service date looks very difficult to achieve.

Jonathan

Industry and social needs are intrinsically linked to defence of a nation. In the end the nation with the best industrial military complex and social cohesion always wins the geopolitical long game.

Mike

Beautifully put and an eternal truth.

Andy A

we need to remember that more expensive if built in uk is irrelevant as the cash recirculates in tax and purchasing supporting many more jobs. Also the industry wont get better till we do. When SHTF as shown in covid and ukraine globalisation goes out window and we can only rely on our own country

Jonathan

Yes one of the key problems with our procurement process is that we done include a section on increase and development of tax base. If you have a billion pound procurement from a U.K. company that will generate tax revenue of 300,000 then that needs to be part of the equation ( so any U.K. product should be judged on the price minus tax base benefits, non U.K. produces without any tax base benefits should be penalised to the same extent in any procurement process).

personally I would go further and include future industrial benefit as well as social cohesion benefit in any procurement.

Its what most people don’t like to really get down to a billion spent in the US, will create wealth and tax base in the US, but not in the U.K., which is not idea and it gets even worse with nations that are not nato nations ( would could potentially be funding a future enemies industrial capacity and tax base).

Defence has aways actually been about wealth, industrial capability and access to resources if you have more of those you win, less and you loss. So our whole military ( and other national bodies) procurement should be based on U.K. first approach.

ANDREW WILDE

This has got to be a joke? Using virtually every available shipyard in the UK to build just three RFA,s over the next six years at least in order to justify a National Shipbuilding Strategy at a time when it is taking eight years to build a Type 26 frigate. This is all about votes, yet again. I thought we must have learnt our lesson after Gordon Brown and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, obviously not. Just take the most decrepit shipyards in the UK, in depressed areas, use taxpayer subsidisation by the billion to support a few thousand voters and renovate the shipyard, drag it out as long as possible and hope the Fort Victoria doesn,t collapse. This is risking the security of our countries on a grand scale. Get these three ships built as quickly and cheaply as possible anywhere, except for the Far East of course and start laying down and building formidable and offensive warships in our own countries, not just Scotland, before we lose the expertise, the ability, the manpower and in fact, most importantly, the time to do anything meaningful.

Sonik

I’d tend to disagree.

A sustainable and effective sovereign shipbuilding enterprise is vital to the future of the RN and therefore national security. So it’s not just about jobs/votes, but that factor does help with the politics.

STKI

I doubt that this sort of protectionist, indirect subsidy would make the industry “sustainable and effective”.

…especially if they were to remain uncompetitive in terms of cost-effectiveness and delivery schedule (compared to oversea European or American shipyards with similar overhead expenses).

Sonik

I don’t disagree re protectionism, but we don’t yet know the outcome of the FSS competition.

Building ships ‘as quickly and as cheaply as possible anywhere’ isn’t going to help much.

Rob N

I think Warships should be built in the UK. However I think RFA ships should go to global tender including the UK. I do not think we should give work to State subsidised yards though – the bids should be on a level playing field. Also
I think the MoD should build ships at high speed not drawing out build times… we need new ships ASAP not in decades time.

4thwatch

These are warships. They are painted grey, fitted with naval radars and are armed. I don’t think they should be built overseas. I think if we dont start somewhere we will never be a competitive ship building nation again.

Jonathan

Agree, save a pound short term economics is one of the issues which if not turned around will cause the continued degradation of western powers.

Gymike

As a nation we now have a depleted army being told to prepare for war, the RAF prioritising recruitment of women and ethnic minorities over white men and the RN with ships with problems. The RFA now has 1 FSS Over 30 years old – takes me back to the good old days of Fort Dunvegan and Duquesne supporting the aircraft carriers of the 60,s
The sooner the new FSS are built abroad the better and the new build ship programme is accelerated the better.

Seems a sensible Defence Review needs to be done quickly and an increase in Defence spending built in. Not likely but needed in my view

Robert Stevenson

I’m a little confused you say “decrepit shipyards in the UK’ don’t let them built the FSS, but you want them to build state of the art warships?

ANDREW WILDE

No Robert, read it again. Show me a shipyard south of the Scottish border that could construct and complete a frigate sized ship then show me one north of this border that would still be in business if it wasn’t for Government subsidies and the fear of Scottish Independence[ Rosyth with its carrier size dry-dock is of course bullet-proof when it comes to getting subsidies] Of course Scotland has a fascinating history of constructing ferries so maybe a converted ferry built in bits in a dozen shipyards scattered throughout the length and breadth of the UK then assembled in a Scottish shipyard to a non-Royal Navy specification at Ferguson ShipyardS, or FSS for short would be very apt. For goodness sake when is someone going to come to their senses, when will one of the stupid Admirals admit they have let the country down and fall on their sword. This is warfare we are talking about and this class of ships are 15 years late. Three of these ships are desperately required if the Royal Navy is to have any credibility and Europe is running out of the skilled labour required to build them, never mind the UK. Why don’t we try the USA?

Jonathan

Then we kill another geopolitically important piece of our industrial military machine, reduce our tax base and future wealth..so laying one more nail in…national security and geopolitical security is never ever best served by the short term cheap fix. Every ship we can should be built in the U.K. as part of a cohesive military industrial strategy.

Mike

Totally agree. To be a major power we need as broad an industrial base as possible. This is both a strategic and economic imperative and one that our forefathers understood very well.

Pacman27

Its not 3 – its part of a sustainable plan to build up our shipbuilding again

The RFA/RN have a requirement for at least 13 large ships (4 tides + 1FFT, 3 SSS, 3 Bays, 2 Albions). this is the minimum and we probably need another 6 to make good on previous retirements etc.

so if we go with 13 and assume a 2 year build cycle this is 26 years if we started today (which we aren’t).

Its all about drumbeat and volume – if we base all of these on 1 or 2 hull types, use same engines and machinery etc. We can make a real difference.

It is the right thing to do.

Jon

Given that Serco/Damen just took £5m of taxpayers money to design a ship, I’m surprise they can just withdraw. Aren’t they contractually obliged to submit something, even if it’s a non-starter?

N-a-B

No. They’re not.

Given how Team UK lobbied to collapse the competition first time round, those that invested their own funds were never going to play for free again.

What they will have done is show the MoD their technical proposal, but decline to submit a commercial proposal.

This release is Team UK starting their lobbying to compensate for their comedy design and build strategy.

ATH

Team Resolute will in the current circumstances have their work cut out if it’s true that only about 30% of the total spend will be in the U.K.
Politicians will be far more persuaded by the jobs/economic argument than by the defence one.

N-a-B

I wouldn’t bet on Team UK building more of it in the UK either. The capacity simply isn’t there. Particularly wrt people.

Grant

Do you think the Navantia proposal is the most realistic of the 3?

N-a-B

It’s certainly the design that has been worked up from scratch to meet the requirement. BMT and Navantia both credible. H&W only weak link.

DJE

BAE lobbying to affect a competition? Shocking!

Sonik

The worst possible outcome would be a lowest cost compliant bid that isn’t very good.

Some insiders have suggested that TUK were not too serious about the FSS competition. So this is an interesting proposal, at least it looks credible.

I also never took the L&T bid too seriously, because despite very cheap labor and good technical skills, Indian industry is not really very competitive internationally.

On that basis was starting to think FSS was most likely a two horse race between Team Resolute and Damen, so this latest update is a bit of a surprise all round.

But at least it now looks like there are some possibilities for a good end product for FSS

Last edited 3 months ago by Ben Robins
N-a-B

To the surprise of no-one, the “mature” Karel Doorman design couldn’t be turned from a tanker with some RoRo space into a proper stores ship.

ATH

In discussion online about FSS I get the impression that a lot of people underestimate the necessary complexity is the internal arrangements to store, pick, pack and prepare for RAS the huge range of stores these ships need to carry. Compared to these sorts of ships Oilers are dead dead simple.

N-a-B

Indeed.

Duker

There would be some truth to that but arent this things ‘mini pallet’ loads on board already. Others would be made up . Its a routine thing in modern warehouses in most countries now, the software is the hardest part but that can be bought off the shelf

MNEJFUS3VBDCPEZTYSZTPIKLG4[1].jpg
Jonathan

Most modern warehouse don’t deal with things that explode or burn in the same way as munitions. Once you start getting into specialist handling standard warehouse don’t work, one reason you don’t see amazon do fireworks. Just look on the HSE website for handling of hazard type 1 ( mass explosion risk), it’s a whole different level of complex and planning, especially in the Marine/port environment. ( the HSE website is great by the way).

Bob

Maybe Amazon warehousing might be able to help out with the planning for this

Jonathan

Amazon don’t even do fireworks, for a very good reason. Specialist movement of explosive hazard level 1-3 is well specialist.

Gunbuster

ATH, Yep…100%
The complexity and arrangements for getting equipment and materials ready for RAS is formidable.
Ammo needs to be in dedicate holds with extensive fire fighting and safety systems installed. Dedicated mags for each class of explosives so a separate mag/hold for HE and propellant natures, smoke and pyrotechnics. Independent/ Duplicated power and water supply fire pumps, vent, sprays, specialist lighting and electrical supplies, specialist racking arrangements, specialist MHE to move ammo.

For just the food Chillers with their required services, need to be big enough for holding frozen and refrigerated stores and be big enough for MHE to get in and out. Dry store rooms the same.
Spare part stores for things from the size of Aircraft engines down to cct boards for electronic equipment.
IT systems to coordinate the stock.
Moving the material between decks needs wide passageways for MHE and lifts, lots of lifts! As you can also VERTREP you need lifts and passageways going all the way aft to the hangar.
Prep on a RAS is setting up the materials into parallelised loads , covered in securing nets and RAS’d using dedicated lifting slings which the FSS will provide so there are stores for RAS equipment and workshops just for maintenance.

Sticking some RAS points on a RORO is the easy bit!

ATH

Exactly

Dougie

Having spent 8 years in total on 4 solid support ships doing the job of storing and preparing RAS loads I can tell you it’s not easy. Consider how to move a blade for a helicopter in a confined area as well as having to resupply ships one after the other. The one ship I could say was up for the job was RFA Regent built to support carriers. Deck level lifts, holds 4/2 to 7/2 allowed fantastic space to prepare and store RAS loads in preparation for replenishment, also if one lift went down we could move to the next without delaying the replenishment. They need to look back at other builds and see what worked on all classes and speak to people who do the job. There’s no substitute for experience.

Duker

Arent the Dutch having a ‘true’ replenishment tanker built . The ‘Den Helder’

The Karel Doorman is supposed to have the following stores capacity ( from Damen)
RoRo space approx 2350 m2
Lanemeters approx 2000 m2
Ammunition. Store 730 m2
Store 1000 m2
F76 7700 m3
F44 1000 m3
FW 400 m
The last 3 are fuel grades

Image of Den helder ( under construction)

Concept_art_A834_Zr.Ms._Den_Helder[1].jpg
Last edited 3 months ago by Duker
N-a-B

Those capacities are miniscule compared to the FSS requirement.

All bulk dry stores in the RFA come on NATO std pallets. Except ammo which comes in a much wider variety.

Point being, all the different types of cargo need different types of cargo hold and some are segregated for explosive safety reasons.

Duker

I think the Dutch requirement is met by smaller ships .

Supportive Bloke

Unless I’ve missed something the Dutch are not replenishing a CSG with a 75kt carrier at its heart……so I’d be amazed if their design, which I’m sure is perfectly good for what it is intended for, could do it.

Rudeboy

It’s worth noting that the Den Helder design has about half the capability of the Fort Victoria…

Hulahoop7

I like the idea of this being the basis of MRRS. Keep a build temp going to complete 3 of these and 6 MRRS. 9 would keep a cycle going for 25 years. Argus x2 replacements first, then the Albions, then Bays. I’m guessing that at 220m, there would be a substantial flight deck for the Argus variant. Perhaps going some way to replace what was lost with Ocean.

ATH

I’m all for a sensible planned ongoing build program, but.
Youngest of the Bay’s has already been in service 16 years another 25 to wait for replacement is probably about 10y to long.

Bob

The bays have been worked harder than the Albions so could be slotted in before these. The fleet tanks are missing from the list that would make 13, so a new ship every two years. The bays might be able to soldier on for another 12-16 years to make this work.

Supportive Bloke

One of the Albions is always ‘resting’ these days!

donald_of_tokyo

Enjoy the KiwiRail, interislander new ferry page …

Actually, informative.

https://www.irex.co.nz/new-ferries

<New Ferries>
Length    220m
Beam      30.8m
Gross Tonnage   50,000 T
Max Draught      7m
Service Speed      20 Knots
Passenger Capacity    1910 People
Total Freight Capacity      42 rail wagons, 62 trucks, 170 cars
Total Passenger Vehicle Capacity   652 Cars

Angus

That is one hell of a big target and way bigger than the Fort Vic which is large vessel. Do we really need such large units? And could we actually fill them? The Destroyers and Frigates will hardly need to RAS for their Missile systems are not combatable with this type of replacement at sea and tankers can and do give them other stores needed which is mainly food stores. Support vessels will be the main target rather than Warships as you can cripple the force when deployed. They also need to be able to contribute to the overall force with a large Helo Deck and hangarage. I feel a smaller unit would be better overall for the RN today. Just my pennies worth.

X

Given the changing strategic picture it would be nice to think some thought would be given to guns and perhaps even Sea Ceptor. Doubt it will happen.

Supportive Bloke

Hopefully it will be fitted for……

Ceptor is the gold standard for self defence and UK will probably have a deep inventory of reloads.

donald_of_tokyo

I understand your point. But I think a bit differently.

1: It is NOT so large compared to Fort Victoria. Length is 10% large, width is the same. In other words, it is only 10% larger. And most of this “length” is to reduce wave-drag (see the movie on the kiwirail web).

2: FSSS main task is NOT to replenish escorts (its just secondary one), but to provide bombs to CV air wings. In other words, to provide sustained air-attack from the CV air wing. Amount of bomb is the power or air raid, so it is directly reflected there.

3: Smaller FSSS is not a good solution I think. As we know, larger is more efficient. In other words, even if you make your FSSS smaller by 30%, you will lose 50% of cargo, but still required 70% of build cost, and 80% of the crew size.

(and I do not think this FSSS is so larger than Fort Victoria. Similar size, for me)

I’m afraid that, even if 3 FSSS be built, only 2 will be operated. RFA lacks crew. Now RFA operates 1 Fort, 4 Tides, 1 Argus, and 3 Bays. Current plan is to operate 2 FSSS, 4 Tides, and 4 MRSS (and 2 more for RN) = already requiring one more 110-140 crew team. If it is 3 FSSS, RFA needs two more crew teams. I am NOT optimistic here.

As I think smaller FSSS lacks cargo capacity, but still will be requiring not much smaller crew, and also thie FSSS is similar in size to Fort Victoria, I can understand the rationale behind this proposal.

Other weak points will be there, but I think size is NOTa big the problem.

Last edited 3 months ago by donald_of_tokyo
Jon

Its max draught is less than Fort Vic’s, so even that extra 10% isn’t real. It’ll probably displace a little less.

Ft Vic is a combination tanker and solid supplies ship, while FSSS will only supply a similar amount of solid supplies (7,000m3 as opposed to Ft Vic’s 6,250m3). The Fort’s 12,500m3 fluid capacity doesn’t seem to have been requested in the 2018 spec.

Andrew Waite

The large size makes refits and future upgrades easier.

Steel and air is cheap.

Last edited 3 months ago by Andrew Waite
AlexS

Steel and air is cheap.

Not that much. More consumption, bigger engines, etc.

Supportive Bloke

Bigger is more survivable.

ANDREW WILDE

Well there you go, 50,000 tons at maximum speed of 20 knots. So that’s a non-starter.

DaSaint

If Team Resolute is able to increase the UK-based build from 30% up to possibly 40% or 50%, they may have a better shot. BMT did a great job with the previous Auxiliaries, and Navantia has a lot of experience with these types of large Auxiliaries.

I hope that the decision makers can see through the BAES/Babcock consortium, as they will make sure that A&P, Cammell Laird and Harland & Wolff only make very small portions of the ship. Besides BAE has a virtual monopoly as it is. BMT can help to better spread the wealth and capabilities needed from other yards.

Jon

I can’t see any reason for the last ship to be treated with the same risk profile as the first. The first ship has to be there on time and lowest risk, but by the third ship, greater risks can be taken and a much larger proportion could be built by H&W than the 40% suggested.

The issue is what comes next? Unless the MoD give them follow-up work immediately, what will have been achieved from a shipbuilding viewpoint? Would they be able to credibly tender for 100% build of cruise liners or ferries? Starting on the MRSS concept phase immediately might be enough of a glimmer of hope for people to see a path forward.

DaSaint

The same could arguably be said for any of the yards. And frankly, all of the yards could similarly participate in a BMT/Navantia/H&W led consortium. For me the issue is focus, deliverability and schedule.

ATH

BAe/Babcock won’t keep the other yards contribution small as they desperately need build capacity. With both the Clyde yards and Rosyth busy with Frigates they need other people to do a lot of the steel work and basic fit out.
The main challenge of this program for both teams is the current state of U.K. “big ship building”. Team Resolute is being forced to major on H&W which is even a functioning build yard, that’s how desperate they are.

4thwatch

With the prospect of a dominant China we need to get on with things at sea.
When the time comes we should keep the 8 ASW T23s in reserve until we have at least 28 escorts. In other words keep both our Frigate factories going at full speed ahead.

ATH

The problems with that plan are that the missile systems and sonar from the T23’s are going to be reused on the T26. Also there are no crew available to maintain reserve ships, without maintenance they will quickly become rusty liabilities with few working systems.

Supportive Bloke

T23 is so beyond its design life that it has cost fortunes to make them safe to operate in extended life. The idea of extending further would incur costs similar to building fresh T31’s.

Then as you say maintenance of a ship with a lot of very old systems and bits. So keeping a supply and stores chain alive

DaSaint

BMT and Navantia both have experience with this type of vessel (Spanish Navy, Australian Navy, RN). BAE and Babcock arguably are (and should remain) swamped with responsibilities pertaining to the Type 26 as well as SSN/SSBN work. IMO its too many eggs in the basket for BAE should they win this award.

Paul Humphries

Based on this article, this is heading towards two hulls.

X

There was never ever going to be three ships.

Defence thoughts

We cannot cut numbers every generation. The RN will be nonexistent in a century if that continues. Even the Thin Pinstriped Line acknowledges that.

Val

This isn’t even a UK bid because Tonka is American and usually make toy trucks and diggers.

Just Me

What a utter s*** show!
Utterly Crappy build in India, or a converted car ferry painted grey.

Rudeboy

They’re only using the hull form of the interislander…and that passage (Cook Strait) is one of the roughest there is. To be able to do that for 30 years straight with little down time will mean its built tough…

Just Me

It’s just 14 miles wide, now get back to be when it’s a design expected to operate for weeks in the deep oceans in weather up to Hurricane force – and survive being shot at.

Duker

The people who used the oceans think otherwise
https://www.theyachtmarket.com/en/articles/general/stormiest-seas-in-the-world/

They seem to compare it with Drake Passage and Irminger Sea ( between Iceland and Greenland)

Tim

Rough Sailing Interislander Kaitaki – YouTube.
Every now and then they lose a B train overboard or tipped. It is a funnel/ venturi in the roaring 40s through which some truly awful weather flows. Aotearoa = Land of the Long White Cloud

KiwiRob

The sailing distance from Wellington to Picton is 92km. A tad more than 14 miles.

Tim
ANDREW WILDE

For goodness sake this is warfare that we, or at least some of us, are talking about. These three ships, and it has to be three to support two aircraft carriers, will probably be serving thirty years at least after their commissioning dates. They should be physically designed to resist anything that comes their way in war or in peace so I just do not see how a converted ferry can fill the requirement.

AlexS

Well RFA Argus is a former ro-ro ship build in 1980 in Italy and seems will continue to be in service for at least a decade more reaching 50+ years. What matters is if it well built.

N-a-B

Are you familiar with Triggers Broom?

X
Last edited 3 months ago by X
Supportive Bloke

Very nice pic

Just Me

14 years of can kicking because politicians refused to listen to the best advice from the then Commodore RFA to buy 3 Lewis & Clarke’s and be done with it.
We’ve got no option to revert to the Lewis & Clarke’s, and now we’re looking at a bargain budget and laughable conversion of a car ferry built in bits by every man and his dog eared shipyard.
It’s an utter farce.

X

Fantastic ships. After a while you get used to their stupid. They always make the directly opposite decision to what is needed always with the weakest of supporting reasoning. The L&Cs probably floated on the wrong sort of sea water or something.

comment image

N-a-B

The pollies would not have heard from COMRFA. Back then, the responsibility sat with DEC(ELS), who from memory was a pongo, who – quite understandably – was prioritising Herrick.

Then came SDSR2010. At which point, anything that didn’t need cash right that second was – again, understandably – deferred.

Given those timings, it was always highly unlikely that a TAKE could be contracted for.

Just Me

In the aftermath and smoking ruins of the MARS fantasy of 12 new RFA’s, (although how they were to be manned was never answered), the question was asked, ‘what now? TAKE was the answer to the rapidly expiring solid stores problem, it ticked all the boxes, but it didn’t have a Union Jack on it.
14 years on, they are still obsessed with sticking a Union Jack on it, even though we can’t build anything. 2 new solid stores ships before 2030? Not going to happen.
We’re just one casualty away from completely losing a capability, (another fire might do it), and still the fantasy U.K. build game endures.

N-a-B

Absolutely agree wrt fragility.

I also remember the MARS “blockbuster” presentations. Trouble was, the money was taken away, nothing to do with a Union Jack build, as the Tide build showed later. As did the first version of the competition where 4 of the 5 qualifiers were offering overseas build. Two of those quit early, but the Spanish and the Japanese both had good designs but overseas build. BMT/Navantia only added H&W because they thought Arlene would be important.

Timing and budget is why TAKE was never going to happen.

Last edited 3 months ago by N-a-B
Duker

‘Arlene’ , is that a NI Politician ?

N-a-B

She was.

Just Me

I’d be very happy to see Japanese builds.
They have a formidable reputation for competence and quality – and deliver on time, and on – or under budget.

Rudeboy

Recent Japanese auxiliaries are pretty small in comparison.
Japanese ship building shuld be our inspiration though…
They also lost lots of capacity in the race to the bottom with SK and China taking over for merchant shipping. But they’ve maintained their skills by regular, consistent orders for naval and specialised ships.
If we want a blueprint to follow they’re it…

Duker

‘Everyone’ has maintained their naval shipyard capacity to build in size from support ships to frigates to destroyers
Dutch ..check
French ..check
Spanish..check
Italians..check
Germans ..check

Duker

‘laughable conversion of a car ferry built in bits by every man and his dog’

in bits is how its done these days.
QE class carriers check
Even all the hull and superstructure is built at one location…its built in bits and final assembly makes a complete strcuture. It hardly matters if some sections , like the carriers arrived from a different location.
Commercial aircraft have been made line this for over 50 years….ship , rail or air the airframe-wing assemblies arrive , often ‘pre-stuffed’ to quicken the final assembly

Just Me

H&W etc are paper shipbuilders. They are seriously planning to build three 50,000 complex de facto warships using non existent yards and capabilities.

Gunbuster

I think H&W have changed CEOs at least 3 times in the past couple of years…Not an encouraging observation.

N-a-B

They’ll build most of them in Puerto Real in Cadiz. It’s a proper shipyard.

The hope is that sufficient H&W staff can be trained up in Cadiz. Facilities are easier to get than people.

Trouble is, Cadiz is much nicer than Belfast……

N-a-B

“In bits” is how you do it if you have no alternative. QEC being a case in point from a capacity PoV.

One occasionally sees it done for European built ships with low outfit content where you can save money on steel labour, where it’s a big part of the contract. It doesn’t happen frequently for ships (like FSS) with high outfit content.

A common misconception is to compare shipbuilding to real production line industries like car or aircraft making. They’re not the same thing. Volume of production and ease of moving blocks are incomparable.

AlexS

French Navy last fleet tanker Jacques Chevallier was partially build in Italy.

N-a-B

Not in any significant way.

It’s a joint programme.

Duker

Interesting that its a ‘series of 4 ships’, 31,000 GRT ( DWT 14,870)

And the final assembly of the 20 blocks took 50 days.! Who says its nothing like the final assembly line of aircraft, sure they are larger size but the final fitout is the key, and like modern aircraft the blocks can come from other countries
‘Fincantieri is building the forwards sections of the French vessels while Chantiers de l’Atrlantique builds the aft sections and is in charge of the overall production and outfitting.’
https://www.naval-group.com/en/lauching-jacques-chevallier-first-replenishment-vessel-french-navy

N-a-B

“Who says its nothing like the final assembly line of aircraft, sure they are larger size but the final fitout is the key”

Someone who’s done it for a living. That bow section is primarily tanks, with limited outfit content. Use of the term “fitout” indicates a lack of understanding of what is actually involved.

comment image

As for the 20 blocks, it would be interesting to understand whether they mean we built all twenty blocks and assembled them in fifty days. Or – much more likely – it took us fifty days to integrate the two halves of the ship when delivered.

Duker

An airplane is mostly ‘tanks’ too and the fuselage is empty cargo spaces and space for the seats above.
Sure its a 30,000 GRT cargo ship with a lot more empty space than say a normal warship , whether its a large Zumwalt class destroyer or one of those little light frigates from Damen , all built by pre stuffed blocks

Its being obtuse to suggest the final assembly time meant the actual blocks themselves as well.

93b91-ddg1000-construct07[1].jpg
N-a-B

Thing is, when I see one of those blocks, I know what’s in it, when it went in, how it went in and the relative effort to put it there.

Again, use of terms like “stuffing” suggests you don’t. One other little difference – aircraft don’t have things like WT bulkheads and decks to deal with (standfast the non-pressurised parts outside the main cabin). They have a significant effect on outfit, testing and access.

Duker

Pre ‘Stuffing’ is the term of art for fitting out the ship or plane modules ( or blocks)
The stuffing includes as much fittings as possible, where once it was only the ‘heavy’ equipment.
Also a new innovation is the low level transporter loaders with it seems huge numbers of wheels which allow the large blocks to be manoeuvred around the flat ship yard

Zumwalt large pre stuffed hull sections being easily moved at shipyard. Im sure you are familiar with this sort of thing ( which I described) yet for some reason you feign ignorance ?

https://youtu.be/mwfLunTLlJc

N-a-B

We were using those transporters thirty years ago.

I’m not disputing that ships are built in large blocks – of course they are, I’ve done them – and also understand the limitations of how much pre-outfit and outfit (what you refer to as “stuffing”) can be done at each stage and why. There’s a difference to looking at a picture on the internet and understanding what’s going on.

What I dispute is the idea that it is preferable to build these blocks in different shipyards and then bring them together for assembly. Of course it can be done – QEC is the poster boy – but it is rarely the optimal solution for a number of very good reasons. Not least the hidden effort involved in hand-over between commercial entities, let alone transport.

Duker

That’s what I said, as much as possible.
I have read that in WW2 comparing prevfabrication of similar vessels built that way(US) with some using traditional methods (UK) saw that the completion time was reduced but the man-hours used vastly greater. A huge amount of labour made this viable for the US assembly line methods, but not so much for UK

N-a-B

Incidentally, the caption reference to the two port side RAS masts aligning with QEC reception points is incorrect.

One of the more ludicrous “tweaks” to the requirement in this competition.

Phillip Johnson

If you look up the spec’s for the new NZ ferries you will note the ship is powered by 4 diesel alternators all located in close proximity to one another. Doesn’t mean the FSS is exactly the same but moving the diesels would be a big issue. If the diesels are located as indicated for the NZ vessels then the proposed FSSS is a one engine rom incident vessel. .

Batteries-Engines-WEB.jpg
Duker

Surely they will have each pair of diesels separated by a bulkhead. Thats all that is required. The WW2 concept of having the propulsion widely separated. the boilers from the turbines in separate sections like a 4 screw cruiser is long gone, like the 4 screws

fijiaplan[1].jpg
Phillip Johnson

I am assuming that there would be 2 diesels rooms separated by a single bulkhead. That would meet commercial fire and flooding regulations but that is all. The FSSS is absolutely essential to persistent carrier operations and yet it appears likely it is being designed to commercial standards.

N-a-B

It’s more complicated than that. The Class notation chosen has been added to for higher survivability.

Duker

Warships have similar separation This is T45
One engine room is separated by a bulkhead to the second engine room . As its a much narrower ship the units are in line slightly offset

https://www.navylookout.com/putting-the-type-45-propulsion-problems-in-perspective/
The 2 smaller diesels generator units are also shown ( in same engine spaces) , which are being replaced by 3

Type-45-destroyer-propulsion-arrangement[1].jpg
Phillip Johnson

Not all. Below is a pretty bad drawing of the Spanish F105 class which shows a compartment between the 2 engine rooms. The USN Burkes are even better separated. Your picture is more a comment on the T45.

802800102A-v3.jpg
Duker

Yes. Thats obvious from the widely separated funnels – these are large scale models of the RAN version

It seems the last 2 funnel RN destroyer was the T82 Bristol. The T42 definitely seemed to have GT in adjacent engines compartments, but also had different sets of main ( Olympus) and cruising ( Tyne) turbines which may have provided a level of backup but not to the extent a duplicated set which was further separated..

DSC05715lrg[1].jpg
Duker

Interesting document from the Defence Disposals about the T42s Gloucester and York before and after going to the Turkish ship breakers , including photos
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/583153/DSA_ship_recycling_report_Gloucester_Edinburgh_York_Web.pdf

X

Spurance class has the best separation of spaces. Note uptakes on each beam………

comment image

N-a-B

Last time I looked, T45 has two “funnels”. It’s just that one is much smaller than the other. Bristol has three.

Arranging propulsion spaces is a complex business. It is affected by (and affects) the hullform, topside layout, EMI/EMC, main communication/DC deck – a whole raft of factors. Sometimes separation of main propulsion machinery by more than one bulkhead turns out to be a worse choice than others, given wider constraints.

Type 26 is a case in point.

X

comment image

N-a-B

??

X

I am illustrating where T45’s uptakes are situated. A picture is worth a thousand words. Or not it seems.

N-a-B

Are there arrows I’m missing or something? What’s your point – and the link below doesn’t work.

X

Last time I looked, T45 has two “funnels”. It’s just that one is much smaller than the other. Bristol has three.

And so I posted a side view of Dragon. Surely arrows are not needed?

N-a-B

If by that, you mean yes – there are two funnels, one is midships and the other is abaft the S1850 mast, then fair enough.

X

Yes. Finally.

X

For completeness……

comment image

X

A proper IEP ship would have greater distribution of primer movers. 🙂

Angus

Like the good old over worked T23’s perhaps

X

Putting on the hindsight goggles they should have 10k tonne ships with pairs of GT’s sitting in uptakes seperated a la Burke with 2 sets of donks down below.

They should have just gone with the Horizon layout.

Sea Viper is an amazing system. The barge it is screwed on to not so much.

Duker

Since the move from combined Gas turbine and steam , all the RN warships seem to have a similar adjacent engine rooms. Its a bit late 50 years later to say ‘theres an issue’

X

I am not responsible for the RN’s propulsion systems.

That is why they are in such a mess! 🙂

Borg

And you actually believe that, don’t you. I guess having a degree in IR makes you the expert in this particular field too then ? please run by us again your expert opinion that Putin would never invade Ukraine, even now 5 months on, I still wonder if you chose the correct degree coarse. Whilst you are at it, could you explain how you would clean up the RN’s mess ?

X

It’s called a joke. Hence the 🙂

How many online identities do you have? When you get up in the morning how do you decide to be Merion X or Fred the Frog or Borg? Multiple personality disorder isn’t very nice you must really suffer. Why not go play ball on a motorway for a while relieve the strain a bit?

Borg

Says the former TH who now identifies as X. Oh and if that was any attempt at humour then I should go back to Uni ! Do you actually read your posts before hitting that button ?

Angus

T45’s are not a good example, build with an engine room that is just empty as it was under the Ops room, what a blinder

Realism not Romanticism

One long-range supersonic anti-ship missile sinks an FSS. One or two FSS assembled in the UK but made by foreign working-class (ngines,gearboxes, generators, radar, and other metal-bashing things that little people make) will not be enough to defend the wealth and privilege of southern English Tories; unless they stick their heads even further up US arses. That is called UK Geo-Political strategy.

Borg

If I Typed that, I’d be Banned.

Quill

And one supersonic AShM cannot sink an FSS because most of the time it’ll be situated right next to the carrier, which if you aren’t aware, is usually protected by a bunch of frigates and anti-air destroyers, not to mention its own airwing that has anti-missile capability and of which is almost always having a couple aircraft patrolling in a conflict environment. Your point is well, pointless, the only time an FSS will sink is if the whole CSG is overwhelmed and that takes alot of effort.

Your comment is but unintelligible points and I’d strongly recommend you read exactly what you type out and make sense of it before making an utter fool of yourself by deciding to click on the post comment button.

Your name of realism not romanticism is quite ironic.

Just Me

Team Resolute, 3 hulls, built as modules in Spain, welded together and outfitted in NI.