Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Liger30
    Armed Forces supporter
    • Jul 2010
    • 901

    The Royal Fleet Auxiliary urgently needs to replace most of its existing tankers in order to meet an amendment to MARPOL regulations (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and the Protocol of 1978) that requires tankers to be double hulled. With the exception of the new Wave-class tankers, the RFA has a single hulled tanker fleet which will be become non-compliant with MARPOL from 2010, although a waiver can be claimed for government owned ships

    Six remaining Leaf and Rover class tankers provide logistic support to Royal Navy vessels at sea, under current (early 2007) plans their decommissioning dates are as follows: Gold Rover (2009), Black Rover (2010), Brambleleaf (2009), Orangeleaf (2009), Oakleaf ( 2010) and Bayleaf (2010) - although these dates may be advanced.
    They effectively have been advanced for Gold and Black Rover and for Bayleaf and Orangeleaf, the only tankers left. (for how long still...???)

    As for costs:

    On 10 December 2007 the MOD issued an "Invitation to Participate in Dialogue" to industry for up to six Feet Tankers at an expected cost of 800 million, this stating that MARS project "aims to obtain quality ships at competitive prices and reduced whole life cost by exploiting commercial best practice and with designs that can demonstrate cost benefits throughout 25 years of service life".
    Little considering that the requirements were pretty high:

    The MOD requires that the FTs are constructed with quality equipment and material of proven reliability and be:

    * interoperable to NATO standards and with NATO assets
    * designed to maximise reliability, facilitate ease of maintenance, repair or replacement and minimise through life costs
    * designed with open architectures that facilitate support and readily enable future capability upgrades and incorporation of emerging technologies
    * capable of operations worldwide, seasonally unrestricted from Tropical to Arctic (1st Year Ice).

    Indicative characteristics of the FTs are:

    * Petroleum Class II and III clean product compliant, reconfigurable for two grades concurrently with capacity up to 18000 m3
    * Carriage of 8 fully laden 20ft ISO containers
    * Potable water cargo capacity of 1300m3
    * Sustained speed of 15knots in Sea State 5
    * Range of 7000nm
    * Replenishment at Sea rigs to include three abeam tensioned jackstay rigs, one astern fuelling reel, single buoy mooring point
    * Helicopter deck and facilities for maintenance and refuelling;
    * Accommodation for up to 100 persons of mixed gender to UK Flag merchant standards
    * Ship life of 25 years
    * OCIMF compliant
    * Classification to Lloyds Register Naval Ship Rules with Naval Ship Auxiliary notation
    * Medium speed diesel propulsion operating on MGO fuel
    * Capable of passage through Panama and Suez canals, i.e. maximum draught of 11m, maximum air draught of 39m, maximum length of 220m.

    The ship shall be fitted with equipment and systems to load and offload Cargo (Liquid), Cargo (Solid), Stores (Solid) and Stores (Liquid) to and from:

    1. the shore when in a port
    2. other ships and boats when at anchor
    3. other ships while underway
    4. other ships while rafting
    5. VERTREP by helicopters hovering in flight (solid stores and cargo only)
    6. helicopters on the flight deck. (flight deck and hangar for AW101 Merlin + air weapons magazine too)

    It also was required "fitted for but not with" a couple of Phalanx, have a couple of light guns position for self defence and provvisions for fitting a Decoy System.
    Paul Lester, the chief executive of VT, said in May 2005: "There could be an opportunity to get some of the hulls of those ships built in China or Eastern Europe and then brought over to the UK. The Mars programme brings that potential because they are support ships; they are not typical." Assembling the hulls abroad would save a lot of money, he said. "There is no doubt that the cost of producing steel and doing some of the fabrication work offshore would be 25 to 30 per cent less than doing it in the UK. But a lot of work needs to be done to establish quality and reliability." Other companies also pointed out the advantages in cost and time of building hulls abroad, at least for the first fleet tanker phase.

    After considering the options, the MOD decided that while the ships were "warlike", they were "presently not needed for the protection of UK essential security interests". The selected procurement path for the fleet tankers is therefore via an OJEU Competition, i.e. any EU company can bid. The Defence Industrial Strategy announced in December 2005 specifically allows this approach.

    The ownership and operation of the ships was another issue, but an MOD study in 2007 essentially backed continuing current arrangements - i.e. the tankers will be operated by the RFA.
    You find excellent coverage here, thanks to Richard Beedall http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ft.htm
    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

    Comment

    • Stryker73
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2010
      • 274

      Not looking good for CVF, doesn't appear to have the backing of the PM

      Plans to build two large aircraft carriers for the navy at a cost of at least 5bn are in jeopardy tonight, Whitehall officials said, after a meeting of the National Security Council chaired by David Cameron.

      The navy is pressing for the carriers, which would be equipped with US planes costing at least 100m each, in a package which could cost 15bn.

      Cameron questioned claims by navy chiefs and the shipbuilders that cancelling the contracts would only save 1bn, according to officials.

      Under existing plans, the navy will also be equipped with new frigates and destroyers. One well-placed official last night said the whole question of which ships the navy will get, and how many, was now "up in the air".

      The dispute has pitched Cameron against Liam Fox, the defence secretary and supporter of the navy who is at loggerheads with George Osborne over who will pay for a new Trident nuclear missile system. The chancellor says the initial estimated 20bn cost of renewing Trident should come out of the core defence budget. Fox says it should be paid for by a special supplementary budget.

      Comment

      • nocutstoRAF
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2010
        • 954

        Even if David Cameron does not back the carriers as they are (and given a number of key contracts in Lib Dem areas I would say he might have to give ground) too much money has already be spent on QE for them to sensibly cancel them as they would still need some sort of carrier capacity even if it is a couple more ASW carriers or LHD's with limited air group of F-35B's, and I cannot see how it would not end up costing more. Plus David would have to fight the companies who obviously think they have a good case, and I wonder how well it would play with the press if BAE takes the Government to court for breach of contract and wins.

        On top of this the US has made it clear that the only things they need from the UK are for it stay in the F-35 programme, special forces and Trident renewal, and it is hard to see the point of staying in the F-35 programme without the justification of the carriers, or the point of Trident if we do not have a comprehensive navy as it gives us precisely two options do nothing or nuke the excrement out of someone with no middle ground.

        I cannot see cuts forecast happening unless the RN is to be turned into a self-defence force (which in combination with the letter from Liam Fox seems to be the intent cancel the carriers, amphibious assault, reduce number of frigates and destroyers, cancel MR4 before it comes into service)
        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

        Comment

        • Voodoo
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Mar 2009
          • 161

          Maybe it's time for a commonwealth navy. Intergrate the navies of the old commonwealth countries to help protect sea lanes and do joint exercises together.

          Of course if Britian is erroding it's navy, will these countries step up to help. I know Canada is having a manpower shortage as is...

          Comment

          • Phelgan
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Nov 2006
            • 277

            Originally posted by Voodoo View Post
            Maybe it's time for a commonwealth navy. Intergrate the navies of the old commonwealth countries to help protect sea lanes and do joint exercises together.
            Why would they, it will only appear as an attempt (correctly) to cover our own deficiences. Geographically it doesn't appear to helpful either. Maybe 30+ years ago this would have been a goer.

            I think, if anyone was interested, there perhaps could have been some scope for common ship designs and building (not just using CAN/AUS?NZ as a destination for second hand vessels).

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              There's an agreement with Australia for common work about the Type 26 and the one multimission-vessel once called C3, which could end up being common development to a degree, and mean Australia and UK will field the same classes of ships.

              Also, an agreement on Type 26 joint-development is in place with Brazil as well.

              Of course, if the SDSR does not spell the end of the Type 26 and/or changes the Type 26 in a massive, underarmed patrol vessel that Australia and Brazil will have no interest at all in.
              Hard to compete with french and italian offers for FREMM frigates with a new ship that's, to start with, apparently handicapped already by the demented idea of a single small hangar +dog kennel for UAVs.
              Get a frigging full size hangar for "up to two" choppers like on FREMM: you aren't forced to embark two choppers, but at least you have the capability to. It can be zero chopper, one or two choppers, one chopper plus UAVs and such. But get the frigging hangar right!

              I've read somewhere that the Type 26 is "not going to be succesful in exports because it is too sophisticate and costy a submarine-hunter", but i think it is not true. It is exactly the opposite.
              Brazil and Australia (and many other possible customers i'd had) want EXACTLY a submarine-hunter.
              Of course, if the Type 26 is developed with an ancient 114 mm gun, a silos for CAMM alone and a lot of "fitted for but not with", people will look away from it and purchase FINISHED ships like FREMM. Check all the recent exportations of warships, and you'll see that DEFINITELY they are all massively capable and well armed ships.

              Look around everyone: underarmed oversized patrol vessels do not sell well anywhere.
              FREMM is heavily armed, the Aegis-derivative ships of Korea, Australia, Japan and Spain are heavily armed and very advanced as well. The Type 45 did not sell because of how idiotically managed the programme was, and because the RN did not get at least one fully kitted out: it would have been awesome advertising, and now that the british armed forces still have a name and a credibility, it would have worked. (ever seen the advertisings of the 7.62 rifle the UK bought to use as L129A1? The brochure now has this waving Union Jack in first page with the proud announcement: SELECTED BY BRITISH ARMY!)
              The Type 26 will sell if it gets a good VLS silos space where UK fits CAMM + (hopefully the navy will manage it this time) a bunch of MK41 Strike Lenght cells for TacToms, space for anti-submarine torpedoes (Stingray for Uk, any other NATO model wanted by customers abroad), and decent provvision for CIWSs and SSM missiles. A definite plus would be the 155/39 TMF gun firing army-style ammo: it is being quietly forgotten, but it was an EXCELLENT idea that even the US would gladly buy to fullfil part of their need for Naval Gunfire Support for the Marines, a requirement that became bloody evident with the loss of the last 406 mm guns on the Iowa battleships and that caused the birth of the AGS on the Zumwalth class.

              Since the Zumwalths are only going to be 3, however, the US Navy would still all too happily adopt an army-compatible, NATO standard 155 mm embarked gun to fit on several of its DDG51 to complete its force.

              And since the 155/39 TMF was succesful in land based firing trials, i hope it is not killed off now that 10 millions or so are required to complete the work. It is a very miserable amount to spend... So much that i hope that BAe eventually is courageous enough to foot the bill itself and propose the new gun for the Type 26 and put it on the market. I'm sure it would be rewarded. Otherwise, the market will be Oto-Melara only. Their last model 127 mm gun with Vulcano ammunition is a damn fine piece, and it will pretty much monopolize western-dependent market.

              The 114 is becoming ancient for real.
              And the savings of keeping a single 155 mm Ammunition Stock would be quite great in the long term.
              "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

              Comment

              • swerve
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2005
                • 13612

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                The Type 26 will sell if it gets a good VLS silos space where UK fits CAMM + (hopefully the navy will manage it this time) a bunch of MK41 Strike Lenght cells for TacToms, ....
                Space for Mk 41 strike length is good, but actually fitting them is a waste of space, weight & money for most customers, as only a few countries (not even all of NATO!) are allowed to buy TLAM.

                It should be offered as an option for any potential customer which might be allowed to buy the missiles, e.g. Australia, but for most potential customers, that space should be used for something else.
                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                Justinian

                Comment

                • Voodoo
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Mar 2009
                  • 161

                  This is an excerpt from the July edition of Warship.

                  "Six of the top twenty shipping flags are Commonwealth. Five out of the top twenty benificial ownership countries are Commonwealth".

                  Now i'm not saying they have to form a task group, but they can protect shipping in and around designated areas.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    @Swerve

                    TLAM is restricted to a range of possible customers, but what about ESSM, ASROC, SM2, SM3 and so many other weapons? ESSM and others are far more easily exported pretty much everywhere.

                    CAMM itself has unique advantages that could make it a global leader of the market for point-defence SAMs (if MBDA manages to really make it surface-strike capable as well within the same budget, even more so), but most countries will want their frigates to carry far more powerful air-defence solutions since they do not have Type 45s to assign to the defence of task groups.

                    The Type 26 should thus be capable to take Sylver, MK41 launchers without problems, as easily and inexpensively as possible. CAMM does not need a VLS system since it launches from its own containment canister and has to jet-blast and exhausts to manage since missile is ejected "cold" and its rocket ignites 100 feet above the deck.

                    The ideal mix for the RN is CAMM + MK41 with TacToms.
                    The ideal mix for exports is the ability to fit pretty much anything the customer wants, be it Aster 15/Sylver or ESSM/Mk41.

                    I'm sure you'll agree. As to fitting shorter-canister MK41 combinations or whatever and using space as the customer wants, i think is an obvious thing.
                    The RN certainly should go for the space.

                    Actually, it should go for fitting the kit, finally, but we'll see.
                    Last edited by Liger30; 30th September 2010, 15:10.
                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                    Comment

                    • Bomberboy
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Nov 2004
                      • 854

                      So, with all that has gone before, that's no further news to report on CVF construction then!!!!!

                      Bomberboy

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13612

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        @Swerve

                        TLAM is restricted to a range of possible customers, but what about ESSM, ASROC, SM2, SM3 and so many other weapons? ESSM and others are far more easily exported pretty much everywhere.
                        But you don't need strike length for all that lot. ESSM fits in the smallest Mk 41, the self-defence length. ASROC & SM2 fit in the tactical module. Strike length is only needed for TLAM & BMD missiles: the former is restricted, & the latter isn't going on a Type 26 ASW frigate (& nor is SM2). That's what AAW destroyers are for.

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        The Type 26 should thus be capable to take Sylver, MK41 launchers without problems, as easily and inexpensively as possible.
                        Completely agree on this.

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        The ideal mix for the RN is CAMM + MK41 with TacToms.
                        The RN isn't interested in TLAM on Type 26. That's what SSNs are for. We don't have so many TLAMs that we need more platforms or launch tubes for them.

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        The ideal mix for exports is the ability to fit pretty much anything the customer wants, be it Aster 15/Sylver or ESSM/Mk41.
                        Absolutely right!
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • Fedaykin
                          Fueled by Tea
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 5295

                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                          @Swerve

                          The ideal mix for exports is the ability to fit pretty much anything the customer wants, be it Aster 15/Sylver or ESSM/Mk41.
                          Which is why the Germans have done so well selling the MEKO class around the world.

                          Frankly when the UK was designing the Type 23 whilst the weapons fit should of been pretty much the same it should of been installed in much the same way as the MEKO class with removable modules. It would of made Type 23 a far more attractive export prospect.
                          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                          Comment

                          • Grim901
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2009
                            • 1143

                            @Swerve: The Rn have actually shown interest in putting TLAM on surface assets. It'd make sense with dwindling SSN numbers. But it seems like a nice-to-have sort of thing, which is why it was deleted from the T45 upgrade path.

                            Comment

                            • StevoJH
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 1024

                              Originally posted by Voodoo View Post
                              Maybe it's time for a commonwealth navy. Intergrate the navies of the old commonwealth countries to help protect sea lanes and do joint exercises together.

                              Of course if Britian is erroding it's navy, will these countries step up to help. I know Canada is having a manpower shortage as is...
                              Wouldn't work unless all the partner countries pulled their own weight. And if the cuts to the RN, RAF and British Army go through, in proportion to GDP and population, the Brits would not be pulling their own weight.

                              Of course Canada's future plans arent exactly brilliant either.
                              Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                              Comment

                              • Geoff_B
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 507

                                Originally posted by Bomberboy View Post
                                So, with all that has gone before, that's no further news to report on CVF construction then!!!!!

                                Bomberboy
                                Well were sort of in that news blackspot now regarding the actual construction. All the shipyards are now in action building their relevant blocks and we'll really have to await the first of these mmain blocks to be completed and shipped to the assembly dock for there to be real news. They do appear to be progressing well, but it will be some time before the initial blocks are completed and assembly on the ship itself can commence.

                                Speaking of the CVF design, has anybody else noticed that there is no identifiable ships crane in the design to date. I know the ships boats are supposed to be located within the flight deck sponsons and are lowered when needed, but i thought carriers generally had a heavy duty crane in addition to the mobile unit on the flight deck ?

                                G

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  The RN isn't interested in TLAM on Type 26. That's what SSNs are for. We don't have so many TLAMs that we need more platforms or launch tubes for them.
                                  This is not entirely correct. More than a desire to expand TLAM capability and launching platforms do exists, and the RN tried hard to get them on Type 45 to start with. TLAM is reported as one of the weapons being considered for fitting on the "High End" new frigates, and these should be exactly the Type 26 (what was earlier called C1).
                                  I can agree with you that easily money will once again frustrate the effort, but TLAM is what the Navy wants for the Type 26 at the voice "support of land operations".
                                  And it may get the army's benediction this time, and a grudging approbal by RAF if the junior service gets finally real and thinks for the best for the country's forces as a whole.

                                  There has been considerable public debate and speculation about the fitting of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) to the Type 45. This speculation was boosted by hints of interest from officials in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March and April 2003. However the RAF tri-service Director of Equipment Capability - Deep Strike (DEC(DS)), who sets the operational requirement, does not consider that a ship-borne LAM is required for the Type 45. Without a firm requirement, the Type 45 PCO cannot fund equipment fit, although a TLAM capability is provided for in the design. There is another complication in that only the Aster 15 or Aster 30 surface-to-air missiles are cleared for Sylver, which in turn is not cleared for anything else (including TLAM) - effectively Sylver would be needed for Aster and Mk45 for TLAM. But to date (mid 2005) the plan remains that initially the Type 45 will NOT be fitted with Land Attack Missiles; a land attack capability and TLAM is not formally a requirement despite years of effort by the RN.
                                  For the Type 45, the TLAM effort failed because of considerable destructive pressure from RAF officers, who evidently fear that the major availability of TLAM and of more launching platforms would allow the UK to cope far too well with shrinking numbers of strike planes.
                                  Exactly as it was for the RAF initial resistance to JCA buy as it was seen as an obstacle for FOAS new planes, the TLAM capability of surface ships was seen as a menace to strike planes of the RAF. What they failed to see is that FOAS, and now not even Tornado, have many chances to go anywhere because of budget cuts.
                                  The RAF behaviour in both cases was childish to say the least, and ultimately damaged the RAF, the Navy and the whole country. Possibly, they're learning the lesson now.
                                  More insight on the TLAM british strategy here from a report of a few years ago:

                                  The Ministry of Defense has argued that Kosovo "vindicated the principles and decisions" set out in SDR. Kosovo also tested Britain's TLAM thesis. Central to effective coercion is the early application of credible force. To deter and to show resolve, Splendid's presence was announced before ALLIED FORCE commenced. Precursor TLAM strikes - to degrade Serbian political, military, and economic strength, to shape the battlespace and enable the combined arms campaign - confirmed TLAM's coercive and military strategic roles. Not only was TLAM the first weapon used, sometimes it was the only weapon used, delivering ordnance ashore during poor weather. TLAM provided a unique British and European capability in partnership with the U.S. and significantly enhanced Britain's in-theater force capabilities. Also, the re-supply of TLAM rounds to Splendid answered British concerns regarding the sustainability of TLAM-tasked SSNs on patrol. From a coalition viewpoint, Allied commander VADM Daniel Murphy, USN, stated that "the targets destroyed in the early weeks were significantly TLAM targets." TLAM was integral to the operation, bringing considerable and sustainable weight of fire. Particularly, its precision gave the Joint Force Commander a tool for reducing risks to friendly forces and non-combatants.
                                  However, employing TLAM did present problems. First, the RN was forced to leave Splendid both in its launch basket and in the hands of Britain's political leadership, and thus largely unavailable for other tasks. Second, the successive TLAM firings suggest that TLAM's rationale evolved from strategic, through operational, to tactical purposes, as more became known about its capabilities and uses. NATO forces "were able to bridge the distance from strategic to tactical application... [TLAM] was the most responsive of all the weapons available to the task force commander." Moreover, it has been suggested that NATO ran out of appropriate TLAM targets, and with political leaders generally favoring unmanned weapons, TLAM was often used against targets usually assigned to tactical air power. It can be argued, with the U.S. Joint Command tasking Splendid, that British TLAMs were used for tactical purposes, and became just another weapon fired from just another platform. Yet what is unclear is the extent to which British, as opposed to U.S., TLAMs were employed for tactical purpose. For example, British officials argue that Britain's TLAMs were used for strategic coercion and for the shaping of the strategic and operational battlespaces only.

                                  TLAM availability in greater numbers and on platforms other than SSNs would augment Britain's coercive capabilities and its ability to effect expeditionary power projection operations within the Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations (MCJO), the RN's emerging military-strategic framework for implementing the maritime aspects of SDR.
                                  Extending the program was discussed during and following SDR, and then after Kosovo. Britain remains firmly committed to the staff requirement of 65 SSN-launched TLAMs. What has changed is that TLAM, a weapon which can supplement or supplant tactical air power with minimal risk of collateral damage, appears a more useful and usable weapon across the strategic, operational and tactical spectrum than previously envisaged, even when employed in limited numbers. British TLAM concepts of operations (CONOPS) have been reassessed. A widely held, but not publicly-stated, view is that Britain purchased insufficient TLAM rounds and will require more than 65. This would be so even if coercion remains as the declared CONOPS. More rounds, whether SSN-launched or otherwise, would provide Britain with greater scope to use TLAM in more than just demonstrative terms (whether demonstrating intent to an opponent or demonstrating partnership with the United States) and in overcoming attrition, particularly if anti-cruise missile defences become available. Perhaps the strongest argument for British procurement of greater numbers, whether for strategic or tactical use, derives from the challenges Britain will face in scenarios where the United States chooses not to become involved.
                                  First considered in the 1990s before Britain chose an SSN installation, surface deployment offers visibility crucial in coercive diplomacy. It would provide more missiles on more platforms than SSNs. Options discussed include: TLAM-capable VLS for the new Type 45 destroyer or back-fitted into the Invincible- class aircraft carriers and the Batch 3 Type 42 destroyers; and fitting carriers or auxiliary ships with box-launched TLAMs. No future option has been ruled out. The Type 45, and the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) are possible long-term options for TLAM deployment.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • Super Nimrod
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2005
                                    • 1053

                                    Aren't we getting a bit far away from the CVF thread here ?

                                    Comment

                                    • Anixtu
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jul 2008
                                      • 92

                                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                      Exempt temporarily, i think i did read. Not for an indefinite time. I guess they can ask a few more years of time, i dunno how much.

                                      However, from 2015 onwards your "legal" single-hulled oil tankers could start being prohibited to dock in certain ports as governments take strict security measures and don't risk allowing unsafe, old single-hull tankers into their ports.
                                      So, there are still many good reasons for thinking about the need for new tankers anyway.
                                      RFA single hulled tankers are already being refused at many ports. Strangely, the US doesn't seem to have the same problem with their very largely single hulled fleet. I have *seen* US single hulled tankers in ports that "don't allow" single hulled tankers.

                                      As regards the future of MARS: if CVF is retained, MARS must follow. CVF is of little use without the supplies to sustain it, and the current fleet of replenishment ships will not last forever. Fort AOR are not the wonderships many see them as: solid stores capability is limited compared to AFSH, liquid stores is just plain limited. By 2018 their fuel cargo tanks will be declared as "bunkers".

                                      Comment

                                      • RacingMonk
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2009
                                        • 63

                                        Seriously, are there any moderators on this forum? I've been scanning this thread for any info on the construction of the new carriers and all I get is garbage about South American navies, Pakistan, fleet replenishment......

                                        The original post stated "Several people said "lets start a thread on the construcion of CVF" but they haven't so here we go folks! I would like to know all the latest info or more excitingly pictures of the consruction of Queen and Prince"

                                        The second post said "Great idea, and lets just keep it to the actual construction itself rather than the long tortuous political road to its construction."

                                        KEEP ON TOPIC!

                                        Comment

                                        • Obi Wan Russell
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Oct 2006
                                          • 522

                                          Agreed 110%!:diablo:
                                          "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X