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!

RFA Support Vessels

We had the hardware for RASing VLSW on my first ship. It just gently rusted and won me a weekly bollocking from the XO for making a mess of his upper deck.
 
It’s not hard, frankly.

park alongside, pass lines, make sure you’ve got enough hands to clear the dump.
From personal experience!

Making sure the receiving ship keeps her movable high point high enough long enough so the cage of 4.5 shells don't bash off the side of the dump point really helps as well!
 
Yes - and no. Aside from the parking when it's a bit bouncy or dark, I'd hazard a guess that the composition and number of loads, combined with storing routes is where it gets tricky. Particularly if you're in MHE territory. Clearing the dump with a palletron, breaking down the pallet and then chainganging its content below decks on a T23 is one thing. Doing it with bigger indivisible boxes - or ammo ULS over some hours is probably another that we haven't done often in a while.

Glad to hear it's back on the rise.
When we RAS'd an almost full load of 4.5 to a 23 and 45 (a few years ago) we had to send over several STO(N) lads to the receiving ships as no one was qualified to do such things.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
They did trial a specialist carriage that would be sent across from the MSC ship and traverse the VL farm, but it was just too much and still didn't remove the empty canister issue (nothing does). It'll be in a field in Port Hueneme somewhere.

I guessing them being sent to Davey Jones' locker would upset either the Treasury and/or Eco-Fascists?
 
When we RAS'd an almost full load of 4.5 to a 23 and 45 (a few years ago) we had to send over several STO(N) lads to the receiving ships as no one was qualified to do such things.

If I were being unworthy, that may have more to do with the STO(N) job preservation society...
 
If I were being unworthy, that may have more to do with the STO(N) job preservation society...
I don't think sending the ancient mariners up the pilot ladder underway was something they did by choice, it also didnt really work as STO(N) is no more. The STO(N) is dead long live the RFA Logistics branch........
 
I guessing them being sent to Davey Jones' locker would upset either the Treasury and/or Eco-Fascists?

Twenty foot long by two and a half foot square containers, potentially with propellant residue are not the sort of thing you just hoy overboard. It would be unfortunate if you hit one with the screw or fin stab etc.
 
Talking of "deep experience", didn't several of the RFA and STUFT Merchant Mariners have WW2 medals, come 1982 and Op CORPORATE? I was thinking of Captain Ian North DSC of the Atlantic Conveyor, who you've mentioned before...

I've seen a few over the years, mostly to old RFA hands or MN-can't find any images at the moment, dammit!

. . . still, this one almost fits the bill:

SAM82.jpg


A group to a Fleet Chief Petty Officer which came up some years ago-at least 32 years service, from Korea to FI.
 
My grandfather was at BRNC* in 1943 (aged 13) and left the RN in 1985.

*Yes, I know, it was actually Eaton Hall etc etc
 

Seadog

ADC
Talking of "deep experience", didn't several of the RFA and STUFT Merchant Mariners have WW2 medals, come 1982 and Op CORPORATE? I was thinking of Captain Ian North DSC of the Atlantic Conveyor, who you've mentioned before...

In 1982, Commodore ‘Black’ Sam Dunlop RFA was Commanding Officer RFA FORT AUSTIN and the RFA’s then seagoing 1* and WW II veteran (medals and all ).
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Why would the MoD refuse to release a report into the procurement of a few tankers?


As they were built in a foreign civilian yard one presumes this must relate to the cost of them, and the controversy over potentially building the FFS abroad.

Still, seems there is something to hide here.

On a wider issue the idea that the MoD can refuse a request form the Parliamentary oversight committee, even on something which was effectively a civilian contract, is worrying.
 
As they were built in a foreign civilian yard one presumes this must relate to the cost of them, and the controversy over potentially building the FFS abroad.

Still, seems there is something to hide here.

An alternative interpretation might just be that, as the report "helps inform our assessment of the UK shipbuilding industry and the practicalities of future procurement decisions" and contains "a full and frank assessment to assist in the formation of policy: policy that continues to be developed and executed" it might undermine the current policy thrust of "bringing shipbuilding home" by pointing out the actual comparative state of the industry in the UK.

Just a thought.......
 
In theory it could be a sh1t storm brewing but as the emphasis at the moment is stupid people who have a sniffle rushing to the nearest 120mile away testing station for COVID and the Question Of Sport presenter lineup is ticking all the right boxes then i suspect it will be forgotten about.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
An alternative interpretation might just be that, as the report "helps inform our assessment of the UK shipbuilding industry and the practicalities of future procurement decisions" and contains "a full and frank assessment to assist in the formation of policy: policy that continues to be developed and executed" it might undermine the current policy thrust of "bringing shipbuilding home" by pointing out the actual comparative state of the industry in the UK.

Just a thought.......

Then how did a fixed price contract for £452m turn into £550m? Has never been adequately explained that I've seen.

As taxpayers we have a right to know how our money is spent, and how well.

I seem to recall the minister responsible claiming in Parliament that they were built abroad due to the bid being lower, yet other sources state that no bids were received from domestic yards.

There is something murky here.
 
Then how did a fixed price contract for £452m turn into £550m? Has never been adequately explained that I've seen.

As taxpayers we have a right to know how our money is spent, and how well.

I seem to recall the minister responsible claiming in Parliament that they were built abroad due to the bid being lower, yet other sources state that no bids were received from domestic yards.

There is something murky here.


Where government money is concerned, and it runs into millions, and tenders are submitted, or not, there are some shyster types that get greedy, back handers are given, trips abroad, use of hotel rooms with "Hostesses" and all sorts of inducements, to either induce the government bloke, or help their friends in the smooth transition of funds to build the vastly overpriced bit of kit. Where vast amounts of money are involved, greed and corruption is king. Both in the public or private sector. .....allegedly.
 
Then how did a fixed price contract for £452m turn into £550m? Has never been adequately explained that I've seen.

Simple. Contract changes as a result of changes requested by MoD? Although not sure I recognise the provenance of your eventual contract value (Wiki?) either. Suspect that includes the UK comms fit done by A&P, which was outside the original £452M.

It should also be instructive that DSME declined to bid for the FSS - as a direct result of their experience on MARS tanker. They actually got burned.

I seem to recall the minister responsible claiming in Parliament that they were built abroad due to the bid being lower, yet other sources state that no bids were received from domestic yards.

From memory, the bidders were DSME (& BMT), HHI (and Rolls Royce), Fincantieri (with NWSL - now Lairds again) and Navantia (with Babcock). None of them included any sort of UK build, although the latter two included an element of comms and other sensitive system fit in UK. No UK build yard (which at the time was essentially BVT/BAES) bid the job.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Simple. Contract changes as a result of changes requested by MoD?

So who was responsible for wasting almost £100 of taxpayer's money then?

If the MoD 'won' savings then why would they refuse to release a report saying so? Because their worldwide reputation for extreme competence and financial acuity makes it uneccessary?

Lol. Hardly!

The perception that this is either covering up incompetence or corruption is almost inescapable here.
 

New Posts

Top