Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS)

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
The Ohio mods seem really interesting

Dry deck shelter - Wikipedia

Forgive a naive ignorant pongo here, but wouldn't a fleet of Ohio-class multi-role subs with nuclear capable cruise missiles be an interesting middle ground? Give up on a like for like Trident replacement, use those savings to avoid all the other swinging defence cuts, but staying in the nuclear club? Buy enough of the things to make sure there's always one or two at sea, but be able to use them for other tasks? Bit of a thread drift but still a multi role boat (if not a ship).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO. We've been all over this dozens of times.
 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
Anyway any mod material on what they are looking for with MRSS?

Well it is most not likely to be anything built on the Clyde, seeing as BAE have just lobbed their metaphorical penis on the desk and went “see this sonny, 20 years worth of ship building secured now **** off with that T31”.

Maybe because there stretched OPV got rifle but in the face treatment.
 
Meh.....

Fort Vics getting double hulled.
New solid stores ship problem can gets kick down the road.
They are working on the Specification for FSS (Future Solid Support) as we speak. Has to be done soon as the old Forts don't have much time left and you cant do it with 1.
 
They are working on the Specification for FSS (Future Solid Support) as we speak. Has to be done soon as the old Forts don't have much time left and you cant do it with 1.


They identified an OTS solution years ago but gave it a stiff ignoring.
Currently, they seem more interested in where it will be built than what they will build and when.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
They identified an OTS solution years ago but gave it a stiff ignoring.
Currently, they seem more interested in where it will be built than what they will build and when.
that could and should be used to describe all procurement
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Tactical nukes were a Cold War thing. They made sense when the trigger to conflict was arguably lower, and that we were at a numerical disadvantage in the Fulda Gap.

IIRC the US have got rid of the vast majority of their tactical nukes, and all of their TLAM-N.
We were never in the Fulda Gap, the Huns and the US were. If the NK ICBM thing carries on then perhaps tac wpns in Korea is next.

PS. We're still at a numerical disadvantage in Germany and elsewhere.
 
They identified an OTS solution years ago but gave it a stiff ignoring.
Currently, they seem more interested in where it will be built than what they will build and when.
The MARs boats are OTS designs. It isnt some magic bullet that solves all your problems...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
The MARs boats are OTS designs. It isnt some magic bullet that solves all your problems...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

In this case, it does. We're spending a lot of money reinventing wheels that already exists, is in service, we're used to working with and doing exactly the job we want.

Designing a copycat design of a Transit van to cut off your nose to spite your face is a fair chunk of why the RN is in the procurement black hole it is.

MARS Tankers? Pointless. Kaisers fitted the bill and 3 surplus new ones were available for not much money back at the start of that particular procurement fiasco.
Solid Stores Ships? Lewis & Clarkes do exactly what the RN/RFA wants.

Now, having spent all the pennies on buying expensive bespoke ships and leaving no money in the piggy bank to buy two smaller support tankers, can you explain how the RFA intended to dock a 40,000 tonne tanker at Mare Harbour?
Thats right, we can't, but thats another fine mess we'll kick down the road until it bites us at a later date.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
In this case, it does. We're spending a lot of money reinventing wheels that already exists, is in service, we're used to working with and doing exactly the job we want.

Designing a copycat design of a Transit van to cut off your nose to spite your face is a fair chunk of why the RN is in the procurement black hole it is.

MARS Tankers? Pointless. Kaisers fitted the bill and 3 surplus new ones were available for not much money back at the start of that particular procurement fiasco.
Solid Stores Ships? Lewis & Clarkes do exactly what the RN/RFA wants.

Now, having spent all the pennies on buying expensive bespoke ships and leaving no money in the piggy bank to buy two smaller support tankers, can you explain how the RFA intended to dock a 40,000 tonne tanker at Mare Harbour?
Thats right, we can't, but thats another fine mess we'll kick down the road until it bites us at a later date.


Just ******* stop! You constantly go on like you know what you are talking about. You don't, you have been called out on this so many times it is embarrassing.

MARS tankers were designed to a specific requirement. The Kaisers do not fit that bill and there was only 3 of them that were double hulled - a major requirement for the 4 needed.

Slower speed, worse fuel usage across the various operational profiles and less cargo capacity - yes that makes them ideal.

So you think it would have made more sense to spend money on a US designed and built tanker that the US Navy binned instead of funding the design for BMT (a UK company) that has gone on to sell the design to other nations.

Will you pleaser just go away.
 
In this case, it does. We're spending a lot of money reinventing wheels that already exists, is in service, we're used to working with and doing exactly the job we want.

Designing a copycat design of a Transit van to cut off your nose to spite your face is a fair chunk of why the RN is in the procurement black hole it is.

MARS Tankers? Pointless. Kaisers fitted the bill and 3 surplus new ones were available for not much money back at the start of that particular procurement fiasco.
Solid Stores Ships? Lewis & Clarkes do exactly what the RN/RFA wants.

Now, having spent all the pennies on buying expensive bespoke ships and leaving no money in the piggy bank to buy two smaller support tankers, can you explain how the RFA intended to dock a 40,000 tonne tanker at Mare Harbour?
Thats right, we can't, but thats another fine mess we'll kick down the road until it bites us at a later date.

You realise the Kaisers are powered by Pielstick main engines. That's good old 60's tech there.

Also have no hanger and need 40 more crew compared to a Tideboat.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
You realise the Kaisers are powered by Pielstick main engines. That's good old 60's tech there.

Also have no hanger and need 40 more crew compared to a Tideboat.
Hush you, the Oracle has spoken.
 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
The Ohio mods seem really interesting

Dry deck shelter - Wikipedia

Forgive a naive ignorant pongo here, but wouldn't a fleet of Ohio-class multi-role subs with nuclear capable cruise missiles be an interesting middle ground? Give up on a like for like Trident replacement, use those savings to avoid all the other swinging defence cuts, but staying in the nuclear club? Buy enough of the things to make sure there's always one or two at sea, but be able to use them for other tasks? Bit of a thread drift but still a multi role boat (if not a ship).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Range - Cruises aren't going to hit Moscow from the Mid Atlantic - so you need to be a lot closer = smaller area to search = Deterrent more vulnerable
It may also be harder to keep 1 of 4 on station at all times ( transit times etc) meaning additional boats required.
No Savings to be had - may even cost more

2) Missiles - Cruise are far more vulnerable than ICBM - so you need more of them (you can also chuck in the fact Trident can have multiple war heads
Currently the RN can and does lob Tomohawk - a nuclear armed variant runs the risk of an unfortunate misunderstanding - So for safeties sake nuke cruise needs to be ASMP esque ie completely different flight profile (which has the potential bonus of increasing its survivability )

So as you can see - the cruise idea either A) reduces if not undermines completely the efficacy of the deterrent or B will cost an absolute shit load more in order to retain a credible deterrent.


Edit gah in the hour it took to finish this post its been comprehensively dealt with by others
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top