In response to questions from Graeme Downie (Labour – Dunfermline and Dollar) on the adequacy of crew accommodation and the Ministry of Defence’s oversight of the Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships programme, the Ministry of Defence, through Minister of State Maria Eagle, provided updates on design progress and crew standards.
Downie asked if the Ministry had assessed the adequacy of both crew accommodation and crewing levels following the completion of the Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
Maria Eagle confirmed that Navantia UK, the primary contractor for the FSS programme, successfully completed the Preliminary Design Review, marking the first major milestone and ensuring the “robustness and maturity of the ship’s design.”
She noted that the Ministry of Defence, including representatives from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), remains “well engaged with Navantia and the British designer, BMT,” in overseeing various elements of the programme, including accommodations. Eagle added that the crew quarters adhere to standards consistent with MOD expectations, designed to “improve the living conditions for our RFA seafarers,” and, where practicable, meet Merchant shipping regulations.
In response to Downie’s second question regarding MOD oversight during the preliminary design review, Eagle reiterated that the MOD and RFA representatives have worked closely with Navantia UK and BMT throughout the process. She explained that crewing levels are based on a thorough MOD analysis, setting the core RFA crew size at approximately 100, with allowances for additional specialists for specific operations.
She clarified that “as the design matures, the MOD, working with the contractor, test[s] the ship design and equipment selection criteria against this headmark, to ensure that the ship can be safely operated and maintained.”
The Ministry of Defence also recently confirmed that the project remains on schedule, with design work progressing as planned.
In response to a written question from Lord West of Spithead, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, provided an update on the FSS programme, stating:
“The Fleet Solid Support (FSSS) ship project is currently in the design phase, with design work on schedule, and its successful delivery remains a priority. Production of the first FSSS ship is expected to begin in 2025 and to enter service by 2031, after first of class trials and equipment fits. All three ships are expected to be in service by 2032, following equipment fits and trials.”
Lord Coaker confirmed that the timeline for their development is on track. The FSS ships, which will support the Royal Navy by resupplying vessels at sea, are designed with a focus on energy efficiency and environmental sustainability.
Financial Uncertainty at Harland & Wolff
In his response, Lord Coaker also addressed the ongoing financial challenges facing Harland & Wolff, one of the key shipyards involved in the construction of the FSS ships. He stated:
“Following a review of Harland and Wolff’s financial situation, the Government is clear that the market is best placed to address the challenges the company is facing. We continue to work extensively with all parties to find an outcome for the company that continues to deliver shipbuilding and manufacturing in the UK.”
Readers will know that the plan is for blocks of the FSS ships to be built across several shipyards, including Harland & Wolff’s Belfast yard, Appledore in Devon, and Navantia’s shipyard in Spain. Assembly and integration of the vessels is expected to take place in Belfast.
New ships still to be built in Belfast under ‘current plans’
However, with Harland & Wolff having faced administration in 2024, concerns have been raised about the shipyard’s ability to meet commitments under the FSS contract. The Government has expressed a clear stance that “the market is best placed to address these challenges,” continuing efforts to ensure the UK can maintain its shipbuilding capabilities despite these financial difficulties.
Importance of the Fleet Solid Support Ships
The Fleet Solid Support ships will provide crucial logistical support to the Royal Navy, ensuring that supplies, munitions, and provisions can be delivered to naval vessels while they are at sea. Each ship will feature a core crew of 100 personnel, with the capacity to support an additional 80 individuals when needed, such as during helicopter operations or other roles.
These vessels, designed with the goal of minimising carbon emissions, will incorporate energy-efficient technologies and are adaptable for future low-carbon energy sources.
Erm,,,,,,,,,,Feet?
Freudian slip perhaps with most of the RFA walking away?
BMT has some interesting designs on their website.
DON’T MENTION THE SSGT
It’s perfect and terrible at the same time
How come?
Gas Turbine submarine
Designed to dash at 30+ knots using the snorkel to power an MT30 type engine for electricity generation, then act like an AIP SSK in theatre.
Would make a stupendous amount of noise in transit, not to mention the gas turbines being positioned in the top of the sail for some reason.
The reason or idea behind it was to have only the top of the sail break the surface so that air could be fed to the turbine. I think it was a concept to get the transit speed and range of a nuc without the cost.
However I would not want to be in a sub operating in the N.Atlantic in bad weather just below the surface doing 20knts they will need a lot of puke bags onboard.
That makes sense.
Their website describes it using a snorkel when on GT mode, but I suppose it is easier to avoid air intake ducts entirely.
I suspect that’s just for ease of description. A GT of mt30 size would need a serious snorkel to get enough air through, it would essentially be an S-Duct nacelle, anything smaller than it’s intake own diameter risks causing a Vulcan Howl which might effect detection. I imagine its a non starter anyway, as Ron alludes to the Dutch roll effect would be a serious puke inducer in any sort of sea state and massively fatiguing. Also a risk of water induced flame-out, it’s why there’s very few operational GT seaplanes other than the Russian albatross/BE200 and the nacelles are… Read more »
I had a look at the website to refresh my memory
The GTs are just two dinky ones in a sort of bulb at the top of the sail, like an inverse wing keel. That’s why they look so ugly.
There’s a really tall snorkel mask for air intake, I assume exhaust is just rejected into the sea.
I don’t think they care much about detection, a GT is noisy at the best of times, hence use only for sprinting in the T26.
Hmmm…apparent from article’s text that HMG anticipates overtures from one or more deep pocketed entities, to assume control of H&W. Potential bidding war developing? 🤔
End the pay dispute with the RFA seafarers by giving them a substantial pay rise and you might be able to man them!
Absolutely.
Ships that will be built under a foreign flag! profits all going overseas as the new UK Government refused Harland & Wolff a government loan. Why?
Because the money would’ve been wasted away by the poor leadership within the company, similar to the previous monies already allocated from the FSS programme. It would’ve been, at best, a 2 year sticking plaster before H&W ended up in the exact same position, except with the taxpayer being out £200m. It was the correct call.
100 crew? How did this design get through? Thought the idea was to make them use less crew not more. Where are they getting 600 crew from? Take it most everything else will be laid up.
3×100 is not 600.
Also the Forts had crews in the 150 region, so this is a considerably smaller crew requirement than their predecessors.
If the RFA goes to 1 on 1 off manning schedule then they will need 600. Would probably take all available British Merchant Navy personnel to achieve.
1. The RFA has said they desire a 2 crews 1 ship system. Which would require 600 crew.
2. You state that the forts required 150 crew. Can you tell me which forts are currently in an active state?
3. The current active fleet doesn’t have a solid stores ship and they still cannot generate enough crew for the ships in the fleet. So the question still stands, where are the 600 (450 if current crewing formula is used) crew coming from.
“Thought the idea was to use less crew not more.”
Nice goalpost shift. You where complaining that forts used fewer people. If your complaining about an increase from laid up then I guess we just will never have solid stores ships to keep you happy.
Umm, you’re the one that brought the forts into this conversation like they had some relevancy.
I was talking about current ships. Otherwise we could go back to every class of ship ever run by the RFA. The Forts aren’t being run anymore so I thought it was reasonable to assume they weren’t involved in any conversations about manpower.
The overall point was that these ships will still require 450-600 more crew that we do not have. Unless we lay up a large portion of the fleet.
120 RFA for Fort Class 1 and 95 RFA for Fort Class 2. However there were also between 25 to 35 MOD civilians on each (not sure what there role was/is ?) and 45 FAA on Fort 1 and up to 170 FAA/RN of Fort 2 . all from British Warships and Auxiliaries so hopefully correct
How to sort out H&W in some ways simple, by confirming the MRSS build of 6+ ships as mentioned by the last government to H&W. All to be completed by 2040. These ships would be the replacements for the Rossilie’s, Bays, Argus, possibly Diligence. We still need to look at replacing the Points. Then mid 2030s to announce the building of two LHDs/Light carriers each of 35,000 tons as replacement for the Albions along the design lines of the Italian Trieste. Able to carry an Armoured Battle Group + 20 aircraft with a mix of 6-8 F35Bs and 14-16 helicopters.… Read more »