The Fleet Solid Support programme has passed its Critical Design Review, marking the transition from design to full production of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s next-generation supply ships, the Ministry of Defence and Navantia UK announced.
The review examined the detailed design of the vessels, including hull structure, safety systems, environmental sustainability and integration of military equipment. Completion of this stage allows production to begin on the three 216-metre ships, which will provide stores and munitions to Royal Navy vessels at sea.
Keith Bethell, Director for the Maritime Environment at Defence Equipment and Support, visited the Harland & Wolff yard in Belfast to mark the milestone. “I was impressed by the scale of transformation underway in Belfast, seeing firsthand how we will deliver this world-class capability and meeting individuals central to the programme,” he said. “This important milestone brings us closer to ensuring the RFA can support our naval operations worldwide while strengthening sovereign shipbuilding for years to come.”
The review follows last year’s Preliminary Design Review and comes as the Belfast yard continues its modernisation under Navantia UK, which acquired Harland & Wolff in 2025. British and Spanish technical teams have collaborated on the design through a knowledge transfer programme involving work at both Belfast and Cádiz.
Navantia UK Chief Executive Donato Martínez said “CDR confirms the hard work and collaboration between MOD, BMT and Navantia UK. This milestone demonstrates that the programme is ready to meet its operational, logistical and efficiency needs as it gears up to deliver for the Royal Navy and RFA.”
According to the Ministry of Defence, the three ships will be the largest UK military vessels other than aircraft carriers and will enhance the UK’s carrier strike and replenishment capabilities.
BMT, which developed the functional design, said the ships incorporate energy-saving and emission-reduction technologies in line with the Royal Navy’s Net Zero 2050 objectives. “We are proud to have collaborated with Navantia UK and MOD to provide a safe, secure and environmentally conscious design,” said Catriona Savage, BMT’s FSS Programme Director.
Navantia UK said the milestone aligns with its commitment to rebuilding sovereign shipbuilding capacity. The company recently welcomed 73 new apprentices, bringing its total to 222, representing 20 percent of its workforce. It plans to create 500 additional apprenticeships by 2030 as part of efforts to strengthen the UK’s maritime industrial base.
oh good its part of net zero! as if thats really important in defence matters. Who cares about it doing the job
Absolutely, who cares if the planet remains habitable to humans or not… 🤦🏻♂️
Indeed if it’s feasible and doesn’t negate the effectiveness of the ships (probably the opposite I suspect) then only a seriously closed mind or someone with an ulterior motive would see it as a negative. It’s time we looked at these policies with an objective mind and judge accordingly rather than parrot Daily Mail and Telegraph memes while ignoring their owners and/or backers motivations.
Hang on, I know this,
Is it Vulcans ?
Probably Klingons Halfwit….
“Absolutely, who cares if the planet remains habitable to humans or not…”
maybe you should learn what is scientific method before…
Before you should stop living on your flat earth?
Is it really flat though ? You might say It’s flat but I’m not convinced.
Most seafarers worked out many, many centuries ago that the horizon is curved (especially those operating in the open ocean). For the majority though, land gets in the way. Their view, in most aspects, does not give an all round view without land & when it does they are too busy panicking to notice it’s not flat.
Is Vulcan Flat ?
Only if you are vulcanising a repair to a tyre tube. Now I feel old. If you don’t know what I am referring to, don’t worry, you are in the majority.
I am a child.
Sorry, I am a child of the 60’s so I know all about Inner Tubes and scuffed knuckles and chalk dust/talc ! ‘ I had a very dangerous Chopper back then.
Maybe it’s a bit, sort of, Square ish.
Vulcans seem to be a little bit Square, no humour, no fun, maybe It’s the atmosphere that does it ?
And why the silly pointy ears ?
“Before you should stop living on your flat earth?”
I see you are one of the victims of todays universities and media that need to sell certainty, So are unable to understand the difference between proven facts and theories and in theories the degree of proof available for each.
Maybe you can explain what caused the draught of 1540.
And then tell me what will be your behavior if it occurred today and of most of the credentialed class….
Hook line and sinker! So very predictable and yet … sad.
Gullibility: is a failure of social intelligence (the ability to understand one’s own and others’ actions) in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action (comment).
Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled.
I do hope that UKDJ are using a light fishing line, otherwise it is not very sporting.
BMT
“ …BMT’s progressive approach to the FSS design integrates new technologies, such as energy-saving systems, emission-reducing solutions, and provisions for future fuels …”
Great news. It will be interesting to hear more about the innovations going into the design to accommodate the Royal Navy’s Net Zero 2050 objectives, a worthy cause. The sooner we reduce our reliance on the fossil fuel products of our enemies and our business competitors, the better, particularly when defence is in question.
Just get on and build them now please.
Indeed just been taking the time to study California’s performance in recent times. A State that at times has 100% renewable electricity generation, is producing 1000s of new jobs in the sector, generated considerable growth and has become the 4th biggest economy in the World. The idea that the green economy is a drag is ridiculous it has the same goals as us and Canada, this State pretty much carries much of the US on its back especially Republican States even Texas and is far better placed for the future that anyone else outside of China. We may not be able to mimic their success for obvious reasons but it would be madness not to learn from them, and even more stupid to claim the green economy is holding us back. Its reliance on gas for our electricity for years that is the biggest anchor to fuel prices.
Good news. So when will they actually stop grandstanding about years to come and net zero and actually start building? We have had almost a decade of talking it is beyond frustrating now.
I’d have had them built in Korea years ago and in service already but that’s just me.
You and a lot of other people TBH.
They were needed ages ago.
That said the Tides were not quite so smooth into service as some have suggested.
The Tides ebbed and flowed into service?
😁😁
Drum roll please….
Hi SB and Daniele, I’m in 2 minds about this one, it’s all down to short term vs long term needs.
YES buying these from S Korea would result in a faster and cheaper build, but as the design has only passed its Critical Design Review they wouldn’t already be in service. Going forwards they’d definitely have their Roller Skates in the build process however the risk is S Korea hasn’t ever built a replenishment shop of this size or complexity. And as you mentioned the Tides haven’t been without their issues.
TBH if money was available I’d be thinking about ordering 2 smaller RFA ships from S Korea as a stop gap and to supply all our other surface warships. Personally I’d go for a clone of the RNZN Aotearoa, as a design she’s a little cracker (Polar class 6) and brings a lot of fringe capabilities. Yes I’m biased as she just happens to be the largest ship ever built to a RR Marine environship design (now closed down after being bought by Konsgerg).
On the other hand NO because it doesn’t enable the regeneration of a large shipbuilding capability in the U.K which we do actually, nor does it ease the future maintenance issues. Put simply not regenerating building capability at Belfast means nowhere to build MRSS in U.K and IMHO and far more importantly it means the QE’s are still restricted to using Rosyth.
Nowhere else in UK still has the space, Gantries, build docks and that massive dry dock it’s all just sat there, we Taxpayers funded them and we’d be silly not to get them back into use.
Regenerating Belfast brings us so many fringe benefits and having our Carriers with a single point of failure is eliminated.
I do realise that Inchgreen would be an alternative but it would require far more investment, their is already a skills shortage and the lack of support for Military Shipbuiilding doesn’t inspire me with enough confidence to put all our Eggs in the SNP’s basket.
Hi mate.
A sensible post at last.
Well ABCRodney was replying to your jackass comment about grandstanding [ironic], net zero and having them built in Korea years ago and in service already.
So yes, a very sensible post
NL says …”Construction will begin in 2025 and all three support ships are expected to be operational by 2032.”
Nope I wasn’t I was actually outlining the pros and cons of both approaches and making the case for the latter. I also pointed out that as the design is only just signed off they couldn’t be built before now anyway (point if fact the design should have been ready years ago but due to the industrial issues there was no rush).
I didn’t reflect on the nearly 2 decades of dithering, prevarication, failed tender processes and downright industrial stupidity (H&W Holdings) that got us in this sad and sorry mess.
As for net zero, I think it’s a laudable ambition and it’s been a massive spur to tech developments that would have probably never happened without that goal.
When it comes to its effects on Marine or Aeronautical Power engineering or improved Hydrodynamics it has had a very desirable impact on advancing machinery efficiency in both DG and GT propulsion and better hull forms. Less consumption means longer range, fewer RAS, lower weights ditto, alternative fuels mean fewer visible fumes and energy recycling cuts the IR signature of a ship and aids stealth.
Believe it or not but until quite recently most RN Naval Hull forms were based on the ISO K research carried out in the 19th Century by William Froude and his son.
Were they on commision ?
🚣♀️
Nice try, you’ll get no rise out if me.
Back under your rock….it’s been a while now.
I don’t think it was a jackass comment. I’d have done the same thing a decade ago to follow on from the Tides. Regenerating H&W or CL would still have been necessary for MRSS. Of course, it’s too late to do it now.
Nobody is suggesting the world would have been rosy if FSSS was built in S Korea, and it’s perfectly possible remedial work would have been necessary in the UK. That doesn’t detract from the point that the UK would have at least one working Fleet Solid Support ships right now.
I disagree with Rodney’s point that they couldn’t have been built before now as the design wasn’t agreed, because as he himself says, the design would have been agreed earlier if there was budget and will to build the ships earlier. I do think he’s right to be consider a small stopgap ship, if one could be built quickly enough, because I’m not sure how smoothly the regeneration of H&W will go.
Ha! I just read this after posting my reply to John and you’re thinking much as I do regards MRSS for H&W.
Yes, too late now, while the RFA has zilch.
Not trying to get a rise out of you, what would be point of that, just pointing out your political hypocrisy.
The Fleet Solid Support Ship Programme involves designing and constructing very complex ships, the largest UK military ships with the exception of aircraft carriers.
November 2015 – FSSS first proposed by David Cameron in the Strategic Defence and Security Review “..we will buy three new logistic ships to support the fleet…”
{rereading the 2015 SD&SR is quite heartbreaking}
September 2017 – Secretary of State for Defence announces in the National Shipbuilding Strategy “…The Fleet Solid Support ships will be subject to an international competition which is due to complete by early 2020…”
{A desire to save money and balance the books wins over supporting UK industry.}
November 2018 – Defence Minister Stuart Andrew announced four syndicates selected for bidding competition. Bidding commences.
November 2019 – competition suspended.
January 2020 – Covid- 19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2])
May 2021 – Competition relaunched and must inclued a British partner.
{UK industry wins after outcry as a strategy is devised to include British partners.}
September 2021 – Four contenders awarded contracts to develop their bids, these bidders are an amalgamation of British and foreign teams.
November 2022 – Team Resolute selected as preferred bidder.
February 2022 – Covid- 19 / Omicron (B.1.1.529) Restrictions end in Northern Ireland and England.
January 2023 – Contracts signed.
July 2024 – Labour come to power.
October 2024 – Preliminary Design Review completed.
November 2025 – Critical design review completed.
2025 – Construction blocks due to begin at Harland & Wolff’s in Belfast, Appledore, Devon and Navantia, Cadiz, Spain. Final assembly for all ships will take place at the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast.
These are a new class of logistical support ships and involve a complex design, It has taken ten years from initial amouncement to iminent initiation of construction and the programe being suspended and restructured.
Add to that 2 years of Covid- 19 misery and the financial effects of Brexit.
The design phase for a new class of warship can take anywhere from five to seven years. First ship expected to enter service by 2031 and all three ships operational by 2032.
It has plodded along in ‘year by year’ increments.
🤞
I know what you are saying regarding S Korean builds, but, bringing Belfast back on line as a ship builder gives us a little strategic depth, especially if we finally start to rebuild some semblance of mass back into the fleet pushing forwards.
Though im sure the growing pains won’t be insignificant mate.
Mate. People are getting me all wrong. I’m not against sovereign capability or Belfast being rebuilt.
I’m against governments leaving the military with nothing in the meantime again and again.
Belfast couid be “regenerated” by building other vessels, if HMG had had any plan over the last 15 years, could it not?
MROSS 2 the up to 6 MRSS which should include some large types as J suggested.
These in the meantime could have been ordered years ago from wherever they could be made at the most cost effective cost as of the 4 FSS we had, Fort Rosalie and Austin were ancient and falling apart, and the idiots then went and cut the newer Fort George on top, leaving one useful vessel.
So that was high priority, the LPDs are younger vessels whose replacement could have waited while Belfast was regenerated to be ready for them, the other yards were all full to capacity as we keep hearing with Escort and Carrier builds.
As ever Daniele, we agree. A lack of strategic thought over the last 25 years has left us in a right bloody pickle…
The damage ( as we all know) was a blindingly shortsighted aproach that
‘from now on its counter insurgency wars’ and anything that wasn’t directly or indirectly related to keeping a brigade fighting in Afghanistan was surplus to requirements.
We will no doubt be dealing with the consequences of that folly for years yet, especially if the current administration don’t stop mucking about and return defence spending to 3.5% quicksmart.
It’s only with the right level of funding that we can recover to minimum levels of mass in all areas.
With a little strategic thought, Belfast could have been dragged out of mothballs years ago.
The money probably wasn’t there anyway
Saw two laid up at Cammell Laird last month, was that part of a planned refit I wonder.
So you don’t really care about British jobs
I’ll reverse that. You don’t really care about the British military having assets.
There….both statements are daft, aren’t they.
I care for both, but the military more. Not every asset needs to be home built when military need should take precedence.
True though a lot depends on those planning the assets and the timing who far too often are responsible for these delays as we so often discuss on here. Simply deciding where they are to be built doesn’t automatically make a difference, indeed in this case finally making the decision as to who and where they are to be built finally seems to have actually energised their building programme. Even if South Korean yards could have built them to a tighter timetable at the stage after announcement of the winner of the competition, it won’t be so much so that the benefits and flexibility of having this state of the art new capability internally and available for ongoing work are worth losing.
Spot on….
We have Leonardo threatening to put a bullet in Yeovils head if its £1 Billion ransom is paid, we have the Unions pushing hard for a Thypoon order, even though the RAF clearly don’t want it..
It’s the tail wagging the dog, there is a reason we spend many billions on defence and seem to have so little to show for it.
It’s all about the MIC mate, HMG care nothing for the military.
I greatly respect ABC as an industry man, and also as my friend, and he can teach me a great deal and even in time I might change my view, as the industry side I know little of.
That is what learning is all about, and the beauty of this site, when one ignores the aggressive prats who occasionally surface.
Personally I’d prefer that everything we bought was made in Britain by British Workers using British materials.
But the realistic chance of that happening ceased to exist back in the Stone Age.
Ugg Ugg, flobble wobble.
(made that up, sort of what we would have spoken like back then ! Good init bro ?)
Must have a shave, too hairy by far.
Sounds more like Bill and Ben.
Ahh Flobalob, It’s close but Bill and Ben were more Teracotta age than Stone.
Weeeeeeaaaaad.
If we want British jobs it would be a good idea if we had a government who supported British industry instead of being hell bent on destroying it. We have record bankruptcy’s,the highest unemployment for years and falling vacancies. Not bad for fifteen months!
Yes but not in the Defence Industries we don’t, in fact just the opposite because other than a potential shortfall in work for Aero (BAe and Leonardo) everywhere else is absolutely booming !
BAe, AEWR, Babcock, Thales, MBDA, SFM, RR, BMT, Navantia H&W are all receiving huge investment, taking on Apprentices and upskilling their existing workforce. In fact we have a shortage of skilled workers in many areas of the Defence industry and especially in the DNE !
As for the rest of UK industry I’d probably agree with a lot of what you say, the NI increase has crucified a lot of SME’s. But as this article is about a positive investment in the U.K Defence Industry and its booming I’ll support this stance (I just wish they’d pull their fingers out and issue the DIP).
The private sector defence industry is booming but it’s largely based on orders that were placed some while ago. There is obviously good news, Norway for example, but even that might (?) have an effect on the R.N.’s ship build. I was really trying to make two points…one about the lack of new UK investment in orders and the second is that the public sector is dragging the economy down. It’s not the fault of the public sector workers. It’s the governments cockeyed approach to tax, borrowing and hitting the income of ordinary people.
I’m not sure how F35, Typhoon, FSS, MRSS T26, T31, T45 upgrades, T83 , Astute, ARKUS, Dreadnought and many many more projects isn’t supporting British Industry
You obviously don’t read or watch the news Robert.
I do, and am not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you mean a lot of talk and far less action, I can agree but you won’t get much of that message via the news, much more so by digging far deeper under the pr veneer into specialist sites. Even then you get mixed messages as there will always be delays between investment and actual I service capability. So the messages are rather nuanced and pr conceived attitudes often influence reactions to them and I say that as a cynical bstard.
Yes, it was the lot of talk and no action bit. I agree about the news regading defence but that wasn’t really the point I was making. How can we build up the armed forces whilst destoying the private sector. I’ve been running businesses now for nearly fifty years, and still going, but even with previous governments, I have never come across a bunch so inept as the PM and chancellor we have now.
I very much do Geoff. And few countries have the military industrial complex we do.
There is NO good news about the economy Robert.
I will agree with you on that one.👍
Thank you,Can’t do a smiley. I cannot seem to access them.
I’ll give you a 👍
…and you’re right!
I would go to say I would have had them build int the Uk years ago.. to ensure we had a large surface unit yard.. this is a long term HMG balls up.. in reality it was a simple unwillingness to invest in British shipbuilding and saving some pounds in year not an urgent need that lead the Cameron government to get these build outside of the Uk.. it’s was pure neoliberal dogma ( that thing that’s has lead to the west having the problem it now has.. china). So in regards to our auxiliary tankers, we have the wave class as a very good core and they could keep orange leaf going no problem for a few more years as well as black and gold rover.. infact in the mid 2010s they had more operational tankers than they do now.. so there was no rush or dire emergency at that point.. they could have used a 4 tanker build to regenerate a UK yard ready for the solid stores ship and MRSS.. HMG knew that from 20112 to about 2035 it was going to need to build 12 20,000-40,000 ton auxiliaries.. essentially a steady drumbeat of one every 2 years.. any government worth its salt would have taken that opportunity to regenerate a major shipbuilding yard.. but Cameron and Osborn were neoliberal idiots and to them using the market to save a few quid was far more important than the development of a geostrategic asset like a shipyard that could secure a sovereign ability to build large auxiliary warships..what we could have had was a decade ago Belfast building the tides..then in 2020 moving to the solid stores ships.. then in 2026 moving to MRSS..
That’s what should have happened if we had not had 25 years of governments that are incapable of thinking in terms of geostrategic need and long term risk vs gain.
Hi Jonathan yep 90% is bang on it pretty well lines up with my input. But I just don’t think extending the Leaf and Rovers would have been an option as they were all 30 + years old, pretty well clapped out and more importantly they were all single skin hulled so not MARPOL or U.K / EU compliant.
Hi ABC they probably could have scraped out A year or two more.. commercial ships tend to be a bit more easy to do that… the single skin issue was something HMG could just say whatever for a bit.. after all the last leaf and rover were not decommissioned until 17/18… I would say they had a couple of years give… just wanted cheap in year.
Agreed no long term planning which is why we are in this hole on so many issues.
Belfast did not bid on the tides 10 years ago because they were just as useless as today
There’s an interesting piece on CNN from October 21st about how Korean yards are so efficient, and moves by Hanwha and Hyundai to improve US shipbuilding: one has bought a US yard and is investing $5bn in upgrading it. South Korea might be able to solve the disaster that is US Naval shipbuilding.
Thanks, I wasn’t aware.
Well if you want a shipbuilding and the skills you need to get them built in the uk ,you could also take your attitude and have all the frigates built abroad they would be done in half the time.
No, because we had the available shipyards who needed the work to build our escorts which are always built in the UK, which is fine.
With FSS, the yards were all booked full of work, there was no one to build them previously, and the military has subsequently gone without. It is taking years to regenerate Belfast.
We’re you another one who expected the new government what ever party too put right 14 years of chaos.
No, never voted Labour in my life. And never will.
Always knew you were a secret Green voter 😉
OMG no…..I agree that action on our environment is sorely needed, but they’re beyond all reason.
With some … interesting policies on migration, the economy and most importantly defence, to say the least.
Might actually have to vote Lib Dem at the next election, absolute tragedy. Though Ed Davies seems like he’d be a fun guy to have a pint with.
What attracts you to the Lib Dems?
It is a serious friendly question on my part. I am a longstanding Lib Dem voter from the Liberal side of the party who finds myself moving away from them. This is mainly because the SocDem side of the party has been dominant for too long and it is showing, and partially dislike of Ed Davis not least because he thinks we should try to out do Labour as Anti Semites.
Of course they should have entered service years ago, it’s been farcical having one elderly and now non-functional replenishment ship. But on the bright side, the new ships have the green light.to.get building and we have a UK yard being modernised and brought back into service, which is great for UK shipbuilding, jobs and defence resilience.
Looking at the bigger picture, the RN has somewhere between 27 and 31 new ships and subs planned to be built over the next ten years, which is a considersble6 drumbeat, as long as HMG can afford it. There will be more than enough work to keep 5 main yards building. H&W has to be the front runner for the MRSS, whether that turns out to be 3 ships or 6.
Do we know what sort of defensive armament is envisaged for the FSSS? It is going to be a big valuable ship and I hope will be able to.defend itself beyond having a couple of 30mm guns for last-ditch defence.
Those 30mm guns are the weapons of choice against Giant Killer Tomatoes though.
.. and with an excellent record of turning them to instant soup.
Ok it’s urgent that steel is now cut and the keels laid up.. money needs to be pumped to get these build ASAP.. not just as we need them yesterday.. but because we need to yard cleared so they can build the MRSS large amphibious vessels.. because now we have flogged Bulwark and not put her in service for the next 6 years we have a huge gap in how we can re-enforce the northern flank.
“Northern Flank” ? What, you mean Them pesky Scots are causing trouble again ? Get some Brickies on that Wall again, that’ll stop them Gingers in skirts.
THere is no ASAP when we dont have the crews
With youth unemployment where it is, I feel like this is a problem that could be solved fairly rapidly with the right amount of political resolve. There’s an ‘if’ in there that is doing a heavy lifting, but we have the manpower to do it, there just needs to be a push to get young men in
Hugo you can train the crews and recruit the people you need.. the “we cannot build ships because we have no crews” argument is BS of the highest order.. 5 years.. you can train a pretty good worker in most complex field in five years.. it takes five years to build a warship.. see the correlation.. the warship your are starting to build now we be ( in the vast majority) crewed by people who are still at being trained or even at school…you create the crew because you have a ship that needs a crew not the other way around.. China now has over 150 major surface combatants..in 2010 they had about 70.. in 15 years they have found and trained crews for an extra 80 odd major surface combatants…so your saying we cannot do the same for 2 or 3 ships.. of course we can we have a population of 60-70 million people.
Id argue differently if there was any urgency to train new crews, but navy continues to lose people due to low retention and upgrades to infrastructure and pay for the likes of the RFA continues to not happen. So tell me well be ready to staff them in 5 years.
Yes but that is a choice that is made.. they can choose to change the flow of retention by good strategic planning.. one of my old jobs was strategic planning for a systems urgent and emergency care workforce.. with a workforce that had the longest and most demanding training regimes of any system.. ( it takes 16 years of continuous education without a break to create a consultant.. even the lowest level staff nurse and junior dr is 4 and 6 years ).. but what I did was plan the crap out of it I attacked the problem from every angle.. reviewed what I had, created models of every discipline I needed and developed the pathways to get what I needed.. if I was asked to develop a new service I developed the workforce plan..essentially building the crew is no less a job than building the ship you do both at the same time so they meet at the end of the road.
It won’t happen due to the cost increase, but what they really should be doing with these is creating a humanitarian relief platform. Big solid stores would be ideal for it, just need space for a helictor or two and a hanger. Plus an order of enough that we have one available at all times to support the carrier and another at high readiness for such a role. Potentially with a iso container style hospital option.
Would really boost the UK soft power, at very little increased cost.
Is there any reason they can’t perform that role Steve?
Depends on the final design. I havent seen any detail of it yet, just concepts of what it could be. The Albion class were fundamentally flawed because of cost cutting around the hanger decision. Cost wasn’t massive but it was extra cost.
we will see what the final design looks like and whether it’s capable of being multi mission or just ends up being specialist solid store delivery only.
Hurry build lots in the next 50 years, and build them strong enough to blast thru ice. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has been collapsing since the beginning of the century. The climate scientists worry the collapse will bring another ice age to Europe, maybe in the next 50 years. Damn! I hate it when the Orange maniac is right for the wrong reason. Then Russian oil, gas will be needed. Those scientists have lots of data, it is no laughing matter to be brushed off.
This is a naval support (supply) ship. Yes, it’s important. But it’s a naval supply ship. Yes, it’s important that UK can build such a ship. But it’s nothing special. Even Canada can supply one. Korea & Japan can probably provide 2 for the same price in half the time. A lot of money & massive amounts of time spent designing something from scratch that already exists in multiple iterations, in multiple countries (in the case of NZ it’s a Korean built UK design & yes I know that it is an AOR, but realistically is RN now big enough to run both FSS & Oiler separately)? Does anyone other than USN run a seperate FSS type ship anymore?
Solid support ships are not a universal design, carriers have differing rig points between designs and that requires bespoke designs.
True, but we’ve had HNoMS Maud standing by and Ft Vic also wasn’t designed for the QEC carriers. Having a poorly fitting but working logistics ship through the 2020s could have been made a priority rather than waiting for the bespoke ones. We decided not to. Let’s face it, Ft Vic will only sail again if there’s a war.
Why would we waste our money on a poorly suited ship which we would probably never get a replacement for. Stopgaps usually become permenant
That’s a very good, if depressing, point.
Slightly off topic but it seems the RFA have suffered a man overboard off Donegal overnight.