The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) project has had more lives than a whole herd of cats, on, off and on again. Most of the indecision has been driven by cost issues and delays around the CVF. Originally intended to replace the existing replenishment ships and provide a joint sea based logistics capability, the sea basing concept seemed all the rage in the US so as usual, the UK followed.
The RFA logistics capability is a vital enabler; it does not attract much attention and certainly does not have the glamour of a sleek warship but make no mistake, the RN would simply not be able to operate without them.
It is a capability we neglect at our peril.
Towards the end of last year it showed signs of twitching back to life with the Afloat Support (AfSup) directorate in DE&S launching a pre-qualification phase for the Fleet Tanker element.
With a reduced fleet size in all areas the need for at sea replenishment self evidently becomes decreased.
The existing fleet is quite diverse.
Wave Class Fast Fleet Tankers, mainly fuel oil and aviation fuel but some dry and refrigerated stores are also carried and the aviation capacity is enough to operate a large Merlin sized helicopter. 2 in service
Rover Class, the smallest of the replenishment ships they are designed to support individual RN ships with mainly fuels. They have a helicopter landing pad but not hangar. 2 in service
Leaf Class, a large fuel only tanker with no aviation capability, 2 in service
Fort (I) Class, mainly used for dry stores with an aviation capacity, 2 in service
Fort (II) Class, arguably the jewel in the crown of the RFA, they are large multi-purpose vessels with extensive dry stores and liquids capacity. The aviation capacity is large and able to maintain and operate up to 5 Merlin sized helicopters. The large flight deck also supports a secondary aviation training role. 2 in service
Wave Rover Leaf Fort (I) Fort (II)
Displacement 31,500t 11,520t 40,870 23,890 32,820
Liquid Cargo 19,500m3 8,500m3 28,00m3 12,500m3
Dry Cargo 500m3 3,500m3 6,200m3
Hangar yes no no yes yes
Crew 85 RFA, 22 RN 54 RFA 56 RFA 115 RFA, 80 RN 140 RFA, 65 RN
MARPOL YES NO NO NO NO
The replacement for Rover and Fleet Class has evolved over the years and it is likely that these will be replaced by a single design. The IMO pollution regulations, commonly called MARPOL, are a significant driver for the new designs. Although government owned ships are exempt the UK Government has always ensured that compliance with international and cascaded national maritime regulations is achieved in its fleet. None of the RFA fleet is compliant (double hulls etc) except the Wave class. The older vessels do not benefit from modern engineering and machinery so are likely to be significantly more expensive to operate than a new design.
The original project called for 6 vessels to replace the 4 Leaf/Rover class, subsequently reduced to 5, If CVF is cancelled the need for aviation fuel will be reduced so 4 may be a more reasonable number.
Latest Design Illustration of the MARS Fleet Tanker
BMT, BAe, Daewoo, Ficantieri, Rolls Royce and Hyundai have shown interest and the BMT Aegir family would, as Jed has stated, would seem like an excellent fit and is available in 3 sizes and 2 configurations.
The largest is the Aegir 26 (26,000 tonnes) and is a large fuel only tanker, with 24,000 cubic metres of cargo fuel. The smallest is the Aegir 10 (10,000 tonnes) with 8,000 cubic metres of cargo fuel.
The intermediate design is the Aegir 18 (18,000 tonnes) and is available in a fuel only configuration with 16,000 cubic metres of cargo fuel or a split configuration (18R) that has a cargo fuel capacity of 12,000 cubic metres and cargo stores capacity of 1,350 cubic metres. The 18R also has a large aviation capacity.
Aegir 18
4 Aegir 18’s would provide approximately 15% less cargo fuel capacity than the Rover and Leaf class but given the reduction in aviation fuel capacity this would be acceptable.
Another option to consider would be to purchase 6 of the 18R design to provide greater flexibility; these would offer more or less the same fuel capacity and be able to provide both refrigerated and dry stores capacity as well as some aviation capacity.
It is likely that single or small task group deployments are more likely to be the norm so 4 might be a reduction too far and recent experience with RFA vessels has shown that they can actually supplement or replace RN vessels in some deployments. Carrying a Lynx or two, a selection of fast attack craft like RHIB’s/CB90 and a small contingency of Royal Marines they can be effective in the smuggling or piracy interdiction role.
After the Leaf/Rover class go out of service the Fort class will follow, these will be hard to replace because they are extremely capable. The MARS programme originally called for these to be replaced with two classes of vessel (much like the existing Fort class)
The Fleet Solid Support Ship and Joint Sea Based Logistic Ship are primarily designed to support the CVF and amphibious group. At this stage the potential to extend the service life of the existing designs should be seriously considered.
Looking beyond that, designs such as the Joint Logistic Support Ship, as suggested by Jed in his earlier post should be seriously considered to fulfill both requirements although 4 may not be required if CVF is cancelled at the brigade ashore support capability is not realised.
RFA Argus is due to go out of service at around the same time as Ocean and is an usual vessel because she has two primary roles, in wartime the extremely modern 100 bed hospital meets the Primary Casualty Receiving role and in peace time the extensive aviation facilities are used for training. Because it is an RFA not RN vessel is very cheap to operate and has shown its versatility on many occasions, standing in for RN vessels in extremis.
RFA Argus
Operational medical care has been transformed during the Afghanistan operation with more complex and extensive medical capabilities being closer to areas of operation with extra treatment being carried out in the UK but this does not mean there is no longer a need for an afloat hospital facility.
Aviation training for deck handling, large and small vessel landing with everything from Chinook to Lynx and in all weather conditions is carried out on Argus. The US military use a smaller vessel for deck landing training, the IX-514 but they have the benefit of a much larger surface fleet for follow on or advanced training. The Royal Navy does not have that luxury so that makes Argus particularly valuable.
IX-514
In an earlier post we suggested a C2 design based on an offshore supply vessel supported by a Bay type support ship equipped with RAS equipment. The Dutch JSS is a larger version of this and is a very interesting design. With an obvious reference to the Enforcer class upon which the Bay class is based the JSS is a large ship, displacing some 28,000 tonnes. The Dutch wanted a versatile ship out of which they could squeeze maximum value, it has to be able to resupply vessels with fuel, weapons and dry stores, provide a secondary aviation capacity, have command and hospital facilities and carry significant loads of equipment for an embarked force.
It will have 2 replenishment at sea masts, an elevator and crane for up to 40 tonnes, 2000 lane meters of vehicle or ISO container storage, roll on/roll off (Ro-Ro) ramps and a well deck. A large helicopter deck can handle up to 2 CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters, and the hangar will be able to hold up to 6 Merlin or even 2 Chinooks without the rotors folded.
Dutch Joint Support Ship
The RFA might not need the command facilities but being able to provide support for a range of vessels, replace RFA Argus is the aviation and casualty receiving role and also carry stores for an embarked force would be a valuable capability to have.
Dutch JSS
The contract value is for £320million and as Jed suggested, some collaborative funding arrangement with DfID may be worth pursuing given the types obvious advantages for the initial phases of a disaster relief operation.
It may even be worth reducing the fleet tanker numbers to obtain more of these versatile ships.
[...] Britain’s maritime replenishment options. [...]
Looking at the diagrams in the links provided by GvG I am now even more convinced that a JSS could replace both Fort classes for a smaller RN. I agree that IF we have CVF’s they should be supported by the larger Aegir class AO’s. However looking at all the vehicle stowage space on the JSS it appears that they probably have all the ‘dry stores’ storage capacity you need, plus fuel bunkerage slightly below that of a Rover class small tanker. If the dry stores capability could be based around ISO containers, with refrigerated containers for food, and even ‘armoured’ containers with standalone fire/explosion suppression kit for weapons, then the ability to “roll on – roll off” would bring a huge element of flexibility.
The ability to carry 4 x Merlin in the main deck hanger is up there with Fort (II) class, and as noted, with the large flight deck one of these vessels could replace Argus as deck landing training ship and even as ‘primary casualty receiving ship”. With Marine and Naval parties and the two rear lifeboats (or LCVP’s ?) replaced by fast CB90’s they would be ideal for anti-drug patrol ops in the Caribbean, especially in hurricane season, when they could use much of the cargo capacity for ‘emergency relief’ stores.
I want that one. Four of them…..
@ Euan. On page 15 of the Marineblad (see link in Admin post below), it says: Deplacement 24500 ton.
Now it’s 27800tons.
The DiD daily link (see Admin post below) also says: EUR 25 million for an enlarged design.
@ Jed. I meant folded rotors. 6 Chinooks or 6 NH-90’s with folded rotors in the hangar or 2 of either either type with rotors unfolded.
Source for this for the Chinooks is the Q&A with the Dutch Parliament. It’s in the answer to questions 24 & 25 (in Dutch).
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Brief%20stasDef%20op%20commissieverzoek%20%20-%20antwoorden%20vragen%20over%20project%20joint%20logistiek%20ondersteuningsschip%20(JSS)%5B1%5D_tcm46-140567.pdf
ooops went off half-cocked ! It appears that the two Chinooks in the super-structure hanger in that diagram do have rotors attached !
Hi GvG how you doing ?
So, the Aussie requirement was in a print article in the last edition of Warships IFR – I have to admit I have been too busy to search online for any references, but it refers to a requirement to replace the oldest of their two AOR’s.
Ref the helo carrying capacity of JSS – there is no such thing as a ‘folded’ Chinook, in the picture in the official letter to Parliament referenced by GvG the Chinook in the hanger is completely sans rotors, which is what I would expect for a voyage delivering it to an operational theatre. Get it on deck, re-attach all the whirly bits and off it flies to service the Dutch Army.
Of course we can also conjecture that a NH90 “folded” is meant to mean tail folded as well as rotors.
Anyway, Admin and GvG thanks for all the extra links
GvG said: “Those specs you list are from 2006, when the Dutch JSS was still 3,300t lighter. I’m still looking for the updated specs.”
The ships tonnage seems to have stayed the same at 28,000t in just about everything I’ve read so if it’s grown 3,300t then people need to update their information. If and when you find the details for the updated specifications please post away as it helps for the mental naval scheming. Any idea if the fuel capacity details are accurate, I would imagine even with 3,300t of added weight fuel capacity would only have changed a maximum of 2000m3 upwards.
Oh! and GvG nice to see you over at Information Dissemination I’m a long time lurker over there.
I see now, thanks for the clarification.
I was actually asking Jed where I can find more info about any Australian requirement for such a design.
Because of what you wrote I understood where the information came from. I pointed out that the ship has grown 3,300t since the June 2006 Marineblad.
Check out the picture on the last page of the official letter to Parliament: http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Brief%20stasDef%20-%20joint%20logistiek%20ondersteuningsschip%2C%20resultaten%20gecombineerde%20voorstudie-%20studie%20en%20verwervingsvoorbereidingsfase%5B1%5D_tcm46-138778.pdf
To add even more confusion in, have a look here (page 15) it shows Chinooks stuffed in hangars and even the vehicle deck!
http://www.kvmo.nl/pdf/marineblad_jun06_volledig.pdf
Information for the article came from various sources, including
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dutch-Order-Multi-Purpose-Support-Ship-06113/
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e8664ce8-c638-4964-a960-5d8acf53c61f
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/09/a-comparison-between-canada-s-joint-support-ship-and-the-new-dutch-jss-soon-to-be-built.aspx
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news73194.html
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/news.htm?item=11
http://www.marineforum.de/forum/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=139&t=7524
To be clear, it’s:
* unfolded – 2 NH-90’s or 2 Chinooks
* folded – 6 NH-90’s or 6 Chinooks
Thanks GvG, will have another look edit the text as necessary.
The bit I read said 6 Merlins (folded) or 2 Chinook (unfolded)
Those specs you list are from 2006, when the Dutch JSS was still 3,300t lighter. I’m still looking for the updated specs.
No way that it can carry 6 Merlins with unfolded rotors in the hangar, since it can only carry 2 NH-90 with unfolded rotors (or 2 Chinooks).
The Canadians are looking at 3 JSS’. They found they couldn’t afford 3 with their CAN $ 2.9billion budget (of which 2.1 for acquisition). So they are back to the drawing board.
Any online site about the Australian requirements?
Euan – my apologies, and thanks for pointing that out, as you say from my last comment, I was somewhat involved in the ‘big game’ last night
So the JSS in its current Dutch form can carry a similar fuel payload as the Rover class small tankers. That may well be enough. I was also wondering if 1 x RAS rig per side was enough, I guess the answer is yes, as long as an embarked helo is Merlin sized for ‘vertrep’ with underslung loads, which is safer than heavy jackstay transfers anyway.
The big flight deck and helo handling facilities do mean that it could do duty as the helo deck landing training ship too – I am liking this design more all the time !
So, if you think about it, we could recapitalize our fleet with almost entirely MOTS / COTS designs:
C1 based on T45
C2 based on Absalon
C3 based on existing BMT designs
MARS tankers – Aegir designs
MARS logistics / multi-role – Enforcer JSS
And there is scope to get the Canadians, Aussies and Kiwi’s involved in C2, C3 and MARS type requirements – how low risk and cooperative could we be !
Which is why it will never happen…..
Jed i posted it in the comments in response to your own post about the RFA.
“I finally found some specifics for the Dutch Joint support ship; it can carry 8000m3 of F76 or Diesel fuel and 1000m3 of F44 or aviation fuel in addition it can generate 125m3 of fresh water per day.”
Does anyone know the liquid cargo (fuel) totals for the Dutch JSS design ?
From what I have read the Canadians would like 2 such ships (as I mentioned in my article they even call the project the JSS !) and now it appears the Aussies are inthe market for a similiar design to. Yet another chance for a Commonwealth cooperative procurement ????
It’s half time in the Superbowl on my side of the Atlantic – go Saints !