First of the new Fleet Solid Support ships will enter service in 2031.

During a session of Parliamentary written answers, Baroness Goldie responded to a query regarding the anticipated timeline for the introduction of the new fleet solid support ships.

Lord West of Spithead had asked the Government about the expected in-service date for the first solid support ship that will replace RFA Fort Victoria. In her response, Baroness Goldie revealed, “The approved In Service Date for the first Fleet Solid Support ship is 2031.”

Furthermore, she assured that the Royal Navy would be diligent in maintaining operational availability during this pivotal transition period. “The Royal Navy expects to manage RFA Fort Victoria’s operational status as necessary to maintain solid support ship availability during the capability transition period,” stated Baroness Goldie.

The answers provided by the Ministry of Defence establish a clearer timeline for the replacement of RFA Fort Victoria, with the first new fleet solid support ship expected to enter service by 2031.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

134 COMMENTS

  1. OMG is it just one person building the whole thing! So will probably be in the water for testing 2029.
    That timescale must put costs up. Perhaps the actual money available is low in the first few years so actual main project funding won’t come until a few years in.
    Still 8 years for a cargo ship

    • Don’t exaggerate there will be someone making the tea.😀

      Seriously though we should be paying for swift quality work.If these companies made more money by getting the job done quicker that might just happen. In time of war would would have no industry fit for purpose.

      • I suspect part of the problem, besides the institutional love of moving anything at the speed of wading through treacle, is to rebuild the skills base at H&W. I also suspect that much of the first ship will be built in Spain with the subsequent second and third having more UK content. It has been said elsewhere on this thread there will also be the opportunity to cancel when the government has a whim to do something else.
        There is also a good leader in todays Times about the state of the Army, with the statement that there is more than a whiff of the 1930’s about todays attitude to the Armed Forces.

      • Andy you are talking a load of B!!!!!!!s. The T31 isn’t built on the Clyde, wrong coast it is being bult in Rosyth.
        And they were told exactly what the MOD expected and how/ when they would be paid for building them. So blame the Treasury.

        • Indeed, the Treasury are the ones who cause the orders to be delayed by years and years..leading to capability gaps and loss of industrial capacity…you cannot kick HW for needing to rebuild the yards capacity and delivering in 2030…when the treasury could have released money years ago and the ships been ordered 5-10 years ago.

        • 😂🤣😂🤣 that was very funny.
          I’m busy myself. Got a job removing the epoxy resin glues used to glue on the davits for the RN river class batch 2s.
          It’s worthwhile work but lots of hard scrubbing.

        • Lol… and don’t forget the extra padded cushions… Lol 😁 Seriously though, let’s hope they really have ironed out the issues otherwise they’ll be needing to make hearing aids too!

    • Yep, it is ridiculous. We laid down the first of KGV battleships, displacing over 30,000 tons in 1937 and had it floating in 1939. We have forgotten these time scales.

      Lazy bureaucracy allowing a container ship to take 8 years to complete. As a country, we should be ashamed.

    • It’s a lot of time, I suspect a lot of that will be tied up in getting HW able and ready to start the build.

      I am an advocate of building in the UK and building up British industry ( I don’t think we should be importing anything that can be build in the UK). But in this case it’s a massive capability gap in that we have one very old ship, the RN are nursing along….so the first one at least should have been build by an up and running yard ASAP ( basically get the first one cracked out in Spain ASAP)….

      But and this is big..simply put the government should have ordered it 6 years ago……it was penny pinching that delayed this in the end not HW.

  2. Not entirely off topic as it relates to some of UKs ship builders See article below and we wonder why UK companies get snapped up when we have created a negative perception of the their activities.

    https://www.coastfm.co.uk/news/business/ministers-summon-defence-bosses-and-investors-for

    In recent months, ESG investing has begun to face greater scrutiny, with Larry Fink, the BlackRock chief who has been nicknamed “the godfather of ESG”, saying this week that he was now “ashamed of being part of this conversation”.

    Mr Fink warned that the term had become excessively politicised and said he was no longer using it.

    • “No longer using” the ‘ESG’ term. Not that they’re going to stop trying to have an outsized influence or “force behaviours” to change… No, no. Just stop using the term & hope people continue to turn a blind eye to it like good little sheeple.

    • Haha, ECG was nothing more than establishing political commissars departments in companies and the **** has the gall of saying that is politicized?!

  3. Another 8 years she has to hang on…. She will be 40 odd years old if the new Fleet Solid Support ships come in on time… surely we can bring the first ship into service quicker than 2031?

    • The RN is probably going to need to beg for FSS ships from US or EU allies. Alternatively they might be better off requesting a temporary transfer of a vessel from the USN.
      Or speed up the programme so FSS is in the water and ready for service in a 5 year timespan.

      • Unless the U.K. gives the job entirely to the Spanish yard how do you “speed it up”? H&W just don’t have the capacity right now to do the job.

      • The RN doesn’t have to beg for anything. Allies use other allies Tankers/Stores ships all the time. It’s nothing new.

        • Solid stores ships are a bit different than a fleet tanker. Every country has its rations, ammunition, tools etc that are different than ones of an ally.

    • I doubt it unless we have the first one built in Spain if they have space available that is.

      “Production is due to start in 2025 and all three support ships are expected to be operational by 2032. The manufacture contract is due to be awarded by DE&S by the first quarter of 2023, subject to completion of a successful preferred bidder stage and final approvals.

      Build work would also take place at Navantia’s shipyard in Cadiz in Spain, in a collaboration that allows for key skills and technology transfer from a world-leading auxiliary shipbuilder.”

      LINK

    • Hi Andy

      with reference to “The type 22 is a case in point, they just vanished in the blink of an eye, some of them were not even run in”.

      I don’t think the RN had much choice as these ships were replaced by the new Type23 in the 1990s. No doubt the government of the day insisted the Type 23 be on boarded to keep the ship yards busy. Do bear in mind the Type 22 batch 3 s were in service until circa 2011- so not bad

      • Although the T23 was not meant as a T22 replacement it was built to replace the Type 12 and T21. The batch 1 and 2 T22s were disposed of in the great “End of History “ the west has won for ever bollox that took over the establishment in the 1990s…they were top end ASW ships scrapped or sold for pittance before most of them got to 14 years old…at least the batch 3s managed 20 years…..but again it was austerity that did for them, not assessment of the risk ( but in reality the navy should have kept the decommissioned T23s and got rid of these first).

        • Hi Jonathan, you are spot on re your comment on the Type 23 replacing the Type 21 and the last of the Leanders. Couldn’t agree more with your commentary re lack of risk assessment.

          I was a fan of the batch 3 Type 22 -excellent assets. Mores the pity the RN to make do with only 4.

    • The batch 1 and 2 T22s suffered from the end of history BS that all the western politicians sucked up in the 1990s..when they were ever so pleases with themselves…”the west had won” don’t you know, the whole world were all going to be happy Neoliberal free marketeers and have democracy freedom and the American ( our European ) way don’t you know…shame the rest of the world just thought the west was up their own arses, thought FU and started to rearm.

  4. Here we go again. Eight years !? One ship so 2032 /33/34/35 for the others? Pick a year. What is wrong with this country?

  5. Hi folks hope all is well.
    As ever I rely on you experts to advise me.
    How many of these types of ships are we expecting? RFA Victoria I gather is the first to be withdrawn once we have a replacement for her. How many new ships will we have to support CSG’s I’m concerned that there maybe be an interim shortfall whilst new ships are entering service.
    Cheers,
    George

      • Has the design or contract actually been signed? I might have missed it but i don’t remember seeing either.

        • Yes. January 2023. It took five years of faffing about (an MOD technical term ) to get that far. Now only another eight years to wait.🙄

    • We are getting 3 and yes there will almost certainly be times that we have to rely on allies until 2031 given the state of Fort Vic.

      • If there is a phrase on UKDJ that drives me nuts it’s “we have to rely on allies” Nothing personal Rob🙂

      • Umm… possibly a naive question, but the term allied support continues to surface; has anyone bothered to actually, physically check whether allies’ solid stores vessels would be compatible w/ the RN CSG? Keep reading accounts of demanding specifications, does not appear to be promising for comparability/interoperability. Just curious…

    • First and only.

      We had 4 FSS, 2 older Forts, Grange and Austin, and 2 newer, bigger Forts, George and Victoria.

      When George came into service the name Grange was switched to Rosalie as George and Grange sounded too familiar, so the story goes I have heard?

      In 2010 the idiots cut Fort George as a cost saving measure, leaving Fort Victoria and the older less capable Rosalie and Austin. Criminal to cut the newer vessel rather than the two older types. And where are the military chiefs now who made that decision? The should face the music for such idiocy.

      A few years ago Rosalie and Austin were sold to Egypt, and they’d not been used much by the RFA anyway, leaving just Victoria to solider on until these new 3 FSS arrive, which, typically for any non UOR procurement, take an age.

      I expect Labour to cancel the lot as they hamstring the UK military into a pure defence force focused on Europe. Expeditionary capabilities of a major power like the UK smells too much of imperialism and empire for them. In my opinion.

      We shall see.

      • Where are the military chiefs that made those decisions. Retired mate on £100+k a year tax free pensions or better yet promoted.

          • Hmm, accountability…

            That is specifically reserved for the innocent isn’t? Usually the PBTP (Poor Bloody Tax Payer). See Thames Water… for latest example of the PBTP being f****d over.

            Cheers CR
            PS not often I’m so cross as to swear but this evening’s news…

        • For once the 2010 decision didnt involve West…He had already done his hatchet job years earlier. During his time as First Sea Lord, West implemented the cutting of three Type 23 frigates, three Type 42 destroyers, four nuclear submarines, six minehunters and reducing the planned purchase of Type 45 destroyers from twelve to eight.

          I love this quote from him that surprisingly nobody ever beats him around the head with… “We must continue the shift in emphasis away from measuring strength in terms of hull numbers and towards the delivery of military effects… I am confident that these changes will leave the Navy better organised and equipped to face the challenges of the future.”

          And yes I have met him a few times and he was a ‘kin Tool.

      • The old fort boats where straight forward Stores Vessels. The newer ones also did fuel and stores, the famous one stop shop for RAS.
        However as they where not double hulled and the rules for tankers changed the RN was then between a rock and a hard place. They spent a massive amount double hulling the tanks on Victoria.
        Personally they should have binned the fuel capability,ballasted the tanks and kept them as single purpose stores ships having binned the older boats…

  6. Military ships UK go through a lot of sea test they don’t just build them and push them in the water job done like Russia China Indian do . The ship will probably be sea ready long before signed off and handed over also British ship yards are full with frigate orders . But let’s not spoil a good story with facts .

    • Harland and Wolfe aren’t full of anything so it should be full speed ahead. As for facts the average build time for similar ships in Europe is four years.

      • 2031 will be her first deployment I suspect, the work up time will 2 to 3 years earlier so in reality the build time will be closer to 4 years than you would initially think. I also believe during the work up time (testing) in an emergency she might suddenly become available far quicker

        • French Chevalier class…first ship ordered 2019 and in service with the navy March of this year. Similar Japanese ship 40 something months from order to in service. We are just painfully slow at everything we do.

          • Chevalier class was based on Italian Vulcano class so not really a new ship.
            On another hand the less 2 years construction was still influenced a bit by COVID and about a 2 weeks delay with a French strike.

            Laid down/Launch/Delivery/Commissioning
            24 December 2021
            29 April 2022
            3 March 2023
            June2023

        • With a bit of wit from the Government we would already be investing in H & W and on the Tyne to open up shipbuilding to spread the load and bring work to both areas.

    • Peter does have a valid point here… look at the Tide Class tankers. They were complete in 2014/15 and didn’t enter service until 2017/18/19. So the ships may be started in the late 2020s, with fitting out, testing/trails for a service out of 2031.

      Also we have to remember the yard that is building these does have other commitments. H&W is a hub for wind turbine projects. So it may be a case of the yard needs to be cleared for space and improvements made in order to start the build.

      • Tides where built in S Korea where the yard messed up the build. Incorrect HV wiring and cabling, V Poor paint application to the hull and numerous other issues. A big one was not following the contract specs. The shipbuilder for once was on the hook for all of the issues and had to correct them before acceptance.

        Then they needed to go to A&P for the fitting of the RAS Gear and milspec equipment which again took time.

  7. Will we actually need these ships with shift in policy coming with the next government? If we’re not deploying globally constraining ourselves to the NS, our patch of the NA and working closer with Europe these appear to be surplus to future requirements.

  8. Fort Vic is unfit for sea service, has no compressors to operate rigging systems etc. they can’t decide asyet to replace or refit. Gonna cost a bucket load of dosh either way😎

    • They will spend millions on a refit, which will be hugely protracted, so will be completed just in time to scrap Fort Vic as the new FSS arrive.

  9. With all the heavy manufacturing advances over the last couple of decades, it’s ridiculous that government spending policies force our military to have to make do with ageing and increasing out-dated equipment due to glacial build programmes. Ajax, Type 26 Frigate, Challenger, F35, Boxer etc.

  11. Maybe a silly question. If the first of these FSS ships is due in 8 years can either or both of the Waves be further utilised or even modernised into a hybrid FSS role?
    And why not build two or three in parallel or closely staggered time frame?

    • The Norwegian version of the Tides has a reduced fuel load but increased FSS capacity.. The weight of fuel supplied vastly exceeds that of solid stores so using the Tides in the interim for FSS ought to be possible.
      Given that the carriers are likely to be operating with less than a third of aircraft capacity, would there not be space for additional stores, thus reducing the need for resupply?

  14. Just build them in Korea like we did the Tides. 8 yrs for the first ship is mind boggling! How long after this for the remaining two??

    • The last ship of this size that Harland & Wolff built was launched more than 30 years ago.
      This is the price you pay for building your own ships. Once H&W is up and running build time will obviously be cut down.

    • Not to mention the tides cost was 550m for 4 hulls, even when you take into account the dubious 65% supposed returned to the treasury claimed by some @1.5b for 3 it still means cheaper to build offshore.

      I’m pro building in the UK if the investment means yards invest, win exports, build the next hulls cheaper etc. But if they just look it as government cash cow then its of limited value in fact it becomes a negative as the next hulls just get more expensive and it drains funds that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

    • S Korea messed up the build of the hulls. Luckily the contract ( For once ) was watertight and they where on the hook to put it all right.

  15. Would it not be more prudent to Pay our sailors better, you know, to keep them in the navy and these new ships crewed?

  16. Relax chaps. If anything big kicks off in the next year or so (make that five) we were always going to be spectators on a useful unsinkable aircraft carrier.

    • Agree the UK is the biggest A/C carrier going and we also have smaller ones perm in the med Gib/Cyprus just need the assets to work from them 🙂 The USN will help out for a stores ship if we need for sure as they CAG will continue to have a big US share in future…….

      • There is a potential problem with the US helping out on the stores front. Ft Vic had her RAS stations altered to allow her to re-supply out carriers, dont believe any US vessel is compatible? Not saying that they couldn’t supply some stuff, but they also dont hold all the munitions that we have, so, I dont think that that is the answer unless in an absolute emergency.

        • I’m sure the USN vessels would be compatible for carrier operations on account the USN has the largest carrier fleet in the world.

          • Which begs the question Why did Ft Vic require her RAS rigs to be modified in the first place?

          • Because the Invincibles were nowhere near the size of QEC.
            Whether that makes US RAS rigs compatible is a different matter.
            The US wouldn’t have made such a decision, so it would have been up to Britain in the design of QEC.
            Does bring up the question of how many of our allies solid stores ships are compatible with QEC.

          • I believe that she didn’t in the end as the carriers didn’t get the heavy duty solid transfer gear in the end… Or was it the other way round? Sorry can’t remember which but I am pretty sure that the capability was cut with half of it already built.

            Sure if I’m wrong someone will put me right 😁

            Cheers CR

          • Believe FSSS RAS rig specs were descoped, as a cost-savings measure, if memory is correct. 🤔😳

          • Hi CR, yes I agree, it was cut as per @FUSAF post. Still have it in my head that they were still altered though, not sure why, but its bugging me? Have tried to find relevant article on here and STRN site, no joy yet.

          • They where cut because the very heavy capacity rig had one job and that was to RAS a F35 engine. Once the USN/USMC developed Osprey COD which can carry an F35 engine the need for the RAS rig disappeared, the RN no longer needed to RAS an Engine, the USMC would bring it over for them.

            So…The RN RAS rig went back to the the standard Heavy Rig that we have always used for stores, food and ammo,

          • Cheers GB, knew there had to be more to it.
            So.. given that most RAS rigs go to a uncluttered part of the deck on a grey funnel liner, on the QE they go to an area which sits under some part of the deck. Does this mean that NATO SSS can RAS with them, or does it have to be Ft Vic?

          • I would like to think that there is some compatibility within NATO SSS, or we might just find ourselves well and truely scr+++d in the not to distant future. Next CSG deployment is next year, so a bit of time to get things sorted. Not sure of any plans there after, but Im sure we will have another deployment before 2030, perhaps even 2 with PWLS having a turn.
            It is no way to run a navy IMO, and am truly saddened to see us drop this low capability wise, as good a job as BW is doing, he needs some serious support across government to bring us back up to where we need to be as a reliable and credible NATO partner.

          • Deep,

            Interesting, intriguing post. Have to believe that somewhere w/in MoD/Treasury or associated think tanks, analyses have been conducted that rigorously demonstrate that a modern, full-spectrum military cannot thrive on 2.2% of GDP. Not certain what value that minimum threshold is precisely, but it is North of 2.2%. Obviously, political class, other than a few outliers (e.g., Big Ben, Tobias Elwood, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss, etc ) are extremely concerned by that number–and yet significantly higher percentage expended thru/post WW II and thru Cold War I. Very daunting task to reclaim an adequate share of the productive output of the nation, once ceded. Evidently, requires nation to be involved in existential battle for survival to motivate electorate, mere proxy wrs insufficient. Reasonably depressing conclusion…🤔😳☹️

          • Actually, believe both QNLZ and PWLS are scheduled to deploy in 2023, respectively to Med and the US East Coast. However should be capable of resupply from bases. The rubber will meet the road during next scheduled Indo-Pacific deployment, though reasonably certain OZ, NZ, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, etc., (all well developed port structures) will feature prominently on the deployment schedule. 🤞

  18. This is totally unacceptable and shows no understanding of blue water task naval operations. If anything, FSS needs advancing to bring into service no later than 2028, the out of service date for Fort Victoria. Sustainment is vital for any naval operation especially as we no longer have world-wide naval bases and support infrastructure. If the Government were serious about a future navy and all the advantages it brings in both Soft Power and War fighting capability these assets would be number one for procurement. FSS should have been ready for an in service date of 2016 when Queen Elizabeth entered service and as the original out of service date of the AFSH’s (Forts Austin and Grange). This was missed just like the lack of Fleet tankers due to dilly dallying by a Labour Government and embellished by a Conservative Government. It is a great pity we don’t sent the people who make these decisions to front line waiting for ammunition, food and spares! 

  19. Arr, 2031. They have a cunning plan. The bow will be in service by 2031, the midships by 2035 and the stern by 2043 just as they payoff the bow…

  20. Given H&W are involved in the build and they have to virtually rebuild the people and capacity in Belfast what do you expect? I mean going foreign might get you it quicker but that’s not an option either is it?

  21. IMHO
    The main single reason is that the underlying issue is UK Politics. Here No One votes for Defence nor do the masses care, so not do our Politicians.

    In France it is very different, they all agree on the need for strong Defence and that transends Party Politics. Every party be they Left, Right, Centrist etcand the Unions all support France having a strongish Defence capability aided by a strong National Defence Industry.

    Here in the UK political world it’s seen as a non issue so they can ignore it and let the next Bod worry about it. Hence no one wants to understand nor fix any long term issues.
    There are some exceptions to that, BW is doing his best and G Brown did order the Carriers but that was because they were being built in the next constituency.

    How else can we explain a Labour Government buying 2 New huge carriers and 5 PMs later we still haven’t enough Aircraft, nor any ships to supply the ! In any sane world these ships would have been ordered around about 2012.

    It is like an episode of Yes Minister, except it isn’t funny. The one in which they had an award ceremony for the most efficent and best equiped Hospital in the NHS, but it had zero patients because there was no budget for Drs and Nurses !

    So why is it taking so long for 3 Ships to actualy be built ?

    a) H&W haven’t built any ship since 2004 and nothing this size in this century, one of the last big ships they built was Fort Victoria in 1994.
    So to do so they have to requip, increase staffing and train a new workforce. Plus as we have zero up to date experience they also need a partner to show them how to build them. And that is Navantia who are used to this sort of buld, using modern block building techniques and working with English Language partners to build things.

    b) The build time is due to the above and the Government Policy to largely build in the UK. I think everyone would say that was a good idea, but it doubles the time taken.
    Other than the Subs, T45s, OPVs and CA’s succesive Governments did nothing to ensure the UK had the ability to build any ships other than an Arctic Research ship and Ferrys (not sure about that one TBH). Same thing applies to production of AFV, Artillery, etc etc etc.

    c) It is nothing to do with spacing the build out so any future Labour Government can cancel them, its purely the timescales taken to reinvent an industry b4 we start building them. It would also be Political Suicide for any UK prime minister to do so due to the Northern Irish question. If you actualy want to hear Sinn Fein and the UDP being in a harmonious mass revolt just do that one.

    Why build them in H&W

    There is no where else left in the UK where you can possibly build these ships, without building a new yard paractically from scratch and that would take even longer. To build these in an efficient way you need a huge building dock witht the ability to block build 2 ships side by side plus huge overhead Gantry Cranes and a Dry dock big enough to fit them out in.No where else inthe UK has that infrastructure in place.
    Barrow is full to capacity with Subs and although they have in the past built larger ships they would need to lay out a practically new Yard. C&L don’t have the room, Manpower, facilities nor have they built anything this size for decades.
    And as for Rosyth where the CAs were built, they have a drydock, Gantry Crane and a workforce but they are busy building T31’s. Unfortunately any build would also have to be in the only Dry dock available for the carriers. So that is a complete No No.

    Put simply it just isn’t just about building these 3 ships, it is about resurecting the National capability to efficiently build Large ships now and in the future.
    After these we will need to replace the Bulwarks, Bays and Point class vessals so other than building abroad we have to suck this up and just get on with it.

    Building Abroad ?

    That is the easiest, cheapest and quickest way to get these ships built and into service. The blue print to do so would be the Tides which were built in Korea by Daewoo (now Hanwha) and final outfit at A&P at Falmouth. They were laid down and in service in less than 3 years and one of the very few projects to come in on time and below overall (adjusted) budget.
    But if you did so you do nothing to ensure you can build anything else large in the future and just remember the next big ships due are HMS and not RFA.

    So we either Buy British and wait a while or “That’ll be a Daewoo” 😏

    • That deserves an upvote, all the effort to write that.

      The NI question is a very good point. I’m suspicious myself that Labour would cancel them but with that hot potato, hmmmm, I’m inclined to change my view and hope I’m very wrong in my belief.

      Unless of course Labour want NI to leave the UK? Many of the more left leaning Labour MPs would be almost gagging for it. We know who they are.

      • I hate to burst your bubble, but whether H&W is building anything is far down the list of issues for NI voters. If you think it would have any material affect on the voting patterns I have a tunnel to sell you once Johnson finishes building it.

        • Burst away, Mark, good to know. I’m primarily agreeing with ABCs point on the political issues WRT the NI parties. Love the tunnel mention, maybe I’m getting mixed up but thought that was a bridge.

          • They considered both from memory, both utterly impractical. In terms of NI politics, H&W being traditionally associated with the Unionist community, but whether it having work would have any impact on the block of Nationalist or Others is the more important question in regards to any future decision on the Constitutional Question.

          • I assume there will be a lot of symbolism around it. Already in pretty much every article about H&W it is referred to as the ‘Titanic yard’ so seeing massive ships coming together there again will be quite symbolic.

    • Excellent post. Wonder whether a habit of winning wars you participate in (w/ a few obvious exceptions) has led to the development of a blase attitude on the part of electorate (plenty of time to rearm, if necessary)? 🤔😳

  22. Any more delays in the pipeline?

    “it was revealed this week that the RN’s Wildcat helicopter will not be certified to launch the Sea Venom missile until 2026.”

    LINK

    • I love the title of this one. Which decade I wonder!

      The Royal Navy has ambitious plans for its Future Maritime Aviation Force

      “The RN acknowledges that the aircraft carriers will rarely, if ever have the option of embarking the 36 F-35s the QEC carriers were designed for. Using an incremental approach the FMAF plan will see UAS add the mass that is needed to the air wing.”

      LINK

      • We’re just over a year away from a major policy shift, I think it pointless for the services to ambitiously plan for anything until they get the new policy directive.

        • Maybe the MRSS option is back on the table; one hull design for solid support ships and LPD/LSD successor. Refit Victoria as dedicated CSG, delay FSS and bring forward Bay / Argus replacement for everything else?

      • Am I right in thinking the only time the Charles de Gaulle has ever carried 30 Rafales in its over two decades of service was for the PHOTEX in 2019, even though it can theoretically operate up to 40? Maybe it won’t operate 30 in the final fifteen years of its life either. The optimised goal for PA-NG (which will be larger than QE) was announced to be 30 Rafales. 30 is an awful lot unless you are American.

        So the idea that the RN typically won’t be operating 36 F-35s off the QE class is to be expected. Especially in the class’s first decade.

        • Hence my comment, which decade?

          “FMAF plan will see UAS add the mass that is needed to the air wing.”

          “She can carry up to 72 aircraft, with a maximum capacity of 36 F-35B fighter jets. It is more likely the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will have up to 24 Lightning jets on board for operations, however.”

          LINK

          • Hi Nigel I don’t understand why they built carriers of 66k tons when there was no intent to deploy a correspondingly large air wing?

            I wonder if the RN would have been better off with a pair of carriers in the 40k ton range (max capacity of 24 F35s) with perhaps a couple of 20k tons LPH’s? Seems a better option, more flexibility and more affordable given LPHs are built to commercial ship standards.

          • Hi Klonkie, you may well be right. However, room to accommodate a mixed fleet seems to be the way forward at the moment.

            This article was posted on here in June 2021. The F/A 18 Super Hornets take off weight falls short by around 9,000 kg 13,387 kg basic 29,900 kg maximum take-off weight.

            So, why go to all this trouble if you cannot accommodate other NATO-friendly aircraft as well?

            Anyway, on to the Request for Information itself.

            “Potential suppliers and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.”

            According to the Request for Information, the Ministry of Defence have set out the following requirements.
            “Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
            a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
            b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
            c. Energy damping method
            d. Potential for energy reclamation
            Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
            a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
            b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”

            According to the Ministry of Defence, the intended outcomes of the Request for Information are as follows:

            “a. Develop further MoD understanding of the different technologies and capabilities available in the market, both current and emerging.

            b. Alignment of potential future MoD requirements with industry standards and processes for procurement of maritime un-crewed and autonomous capabilities; and,
            c. Enable the Authority to develop a procurement strategy that will deliver best value for money for Defence.”

            The Royal Navy say that the DEVELOP Directorate leads the development of the Royal Navy’s future warfighting capability and “acts as the platform for the through-life capability for all maritime capabilities in order to achieve the optimum mix of present and future warfighting technologies for a modern, global and ready Royal Navy”.

            The Royal Navy is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles and to “give wider options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet”.

          • Hi Nigel
            You do make an interesting point re “So, why go to all this trouble if you cannot accommodate other NATO-friendly aircraft as well?”
            A good detailed reply, I enjoyed reading your post. Have a good weekend Squire.

          • Likewise 👍

            The ski ramp could make all the difference!

            Mega Indian Navy deal: Boeing says Super Hornet ski-jump tests successful 

            LINK

  23. With multiple contract amendments, it’ll end up being towed to another dockyard to be completed; the directors will be patting themselves on the back job well done and subsequently order themselves new German cars, we all know the drills!!!!

  24. Any idea when they will actually start building? Is this long delay time purely because the H&W dockyards are in need of significant work to even get the dockyards capable of building a vessel?

  25. This timeline shows the state of UK manufacturing. Just over 100 years ago we could build the hull of a battleship in four months and have her ready for trials in 12 months (HMS Dreadnought).Yes there was some prefabrication but she was still the first battleship with turbines. With everything done by hand, drawings, cutting, riviting et. Now we have computers, computer controled laser cutting, robotics to aid in lifting etc. Is modern construction methods not only to make things easier and more precise but also to make production quicker?

    Hopefully these much needed ships aill be in the fleet by 2032 and that a variant of the design could become the MRSS could be started by 2030. I would still like the MRSS to be based on the BMT Ellida design.

    With BAE building T26/T83, Rosyth building the T31/T3, Barrow the SSBN/AUKUS-SSN and Belfast ships for the RFA the RN by 2035 will be a very diffrent fleet to what we have now. I just wish that we could find the budget for two or three LHDs and some 3-4,000 ton corvettes

  26. So the treasury slowly releases the money, taking longer for any ship to be built, whilst incurring millions in extra costs.

    So rather than look at the ineptitude of this method of procurement, the treasury bean counters believe they are keeping a ‘grip’ on defence spending, by only paying out however many billions/annum?

    Is that basically how it works?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here