News story: New ship to support the aircraft carriers arrives in UK

#1
The second of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new Tide-class support ships, RFA Tiderace, has arrived in Cornwall to begin a programme of customisation that will support 300 UK jobs.

Like her sister ship RFA Tidespring, which arrived in April this year, the 39,000-tonne RFA Tiderace can carry up to 19,000 cubic metres of fuel and 1,400 cubic metres of fresh water in support of Royal Navy operations all over the world.

She has been designed to support the new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, the first of which, HMS Queen Elizabeth, arrived in Portsmouth last month.

Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin said:


This year of the Royal Navy goes from strength to strength as we welcome yet another new ship into the UK’s growing fleet. It’s great to see RFA Tiderace join her sister ship RFA Tidespring in the UK today, and I would like to thank the Falmouth team for their important work.

The second MARS tanker, RFA Tiderace, arrived in Falmouth this morning.

The customisation work in Falmouth, which will install armour, self-defence weaponry and communications systems, will help to support 300 local jobs. The UK work content in the Tide Class programme as a whole, which is being delivered well within budget by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), is worth around £150 million, sustaining further jobs at 27 UK-based companies.

RFA Tiderace is expected to undergo around four months of customisation before beginning a round of final sea trials before entering service next year. Meanwhile, RFA Tidespring is expected to finish final sea trials in the coming weeks and enter service before the end of this year.

Sir Simon Bollom, Chief of Materiel (Ships) at Defence Equipment and Support, the MOD’s procurement organisation, said:


Like her sister ship, RFA Tiderace will perform a crucial role in supporting the Royal Navy’s global mission in defence of the UK and her interests.

I am proud to welcome Tiderace and her crew to Falmouth as part of the continued successful delivery of the Tide Class programme and look forward to welcoming the final two ships in the class over the coming months.

The Tide Class has a flight deck able to accommodate the large Chinook helicopter and offer significant improvements over previous RFA tankers such as double hulls and greater environmental protection measures.

Tiderace’s arrival comes at a time when the Royal Navy fleet is growing, as encouraged by the National Shipbuilding Strategy announced earlier this month. Setting out to expand the fleet by the 2030s and generate regional prosperity for shipyards across the UK, the Strategy is ambitious in its approach.

Continue reading...
 
#3
"The customisation work" is such a cute boyz comic phrase. So she's fitting out then. I wouldn't mind but the same bolloxspeak is used in a magazine for people who are supposed to know, Desider. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/612481/MayDesider2017-interactive.pdf
Bolloxspeak has been around for a while; it's an integral blue-sky-thinking concept which is an essential investment component of Management Bollox.

Apart from the bolloxspeak, though, I was interested to read that the Falmouth work " will install armour, self-defence weaponry and communications systems" .

I have visions of twelve-inch plate on the turret barbettes, with similar protection on the main belt and the flight deck.

Have I missed something?
 
#5
Would not be needed if the carriers were Nuclear powered and had cats and traps.

We had this discussion on the QE thread. Yes it would have meant an increase in trained strength and probably a new training facility (however if they designed their nuclear panels along the lines of the Successor boats or A-Boats then maybe not) but it is something I agree should have been implemented.

The carriers will still need RFA support but it would have meant more avcat and longer endurance not forgetting a chance for some sundodgers work on a target.
 
#6
[Tide-class support ships] Would not be needed if the carriers were Nuclear powered and had cats and traps.
...and their aircraft ran on thin air. Even nuclear-powered carriers have to replenish jet fuel every few days. I have been led to believe that a pair of jet fighters can consume as much fuel as the carrier from which they are operating. I'm sure other posters can elucidate.

It also appears that the Americans are becoming much more favourably inclined towards having conventionally powered carriers in future owing to the vast savings to be made in manpower, especially expensive nuclear SQEP (Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person) personnel, training, through-life costs, reactor decommissioning and after care.

This is worth reading in its entirety:

Save the Royal Navy 9 Aug 2017 said:
...When on operations, the ship’s air group will consume considerable amounts of aviation fuel. Even if the ship is nuclear-powered, she must be accompanied by a tanker to conduct RAS (Replenishment At Sea) at frequent intervals. If you have to conduct RAS with an auxiliary tanker anyway, it is not a big effort to refuel the ship at the same time.
The escorts ships that will nearly always accompany the carrier are also conventionally-powered so nuclear powered carrier does not eliminate the need for RAS. The 4 Tide class tankers that will soon be joining the RFA can replenish the QEC with aviation fuel and diesel simultaneously, using rigs plugged into receiving points on the carrier’s port side.
The US Navy has to operate in the Pacific where distances can be huge. Nuclear propulsion may make more sense in the vast Pacific but how frequently will the QEC be deployed over huge distances where there are no refuelling opportunities?...
Incidentally, the STOVL F-35B will not need to retain the significant extra fuel required in the event of a 'bolter', i.e. the need to 'take' off' and go round again if it fails to catch an arrestor wire. The ability to 'stop then land' instead of 'land then stop' also means it will be able to operate in less favourable weather conditions than 'cat & trap' aircraft.
 
#7
I am not a complete numpty, as an ex clanky and one of the first people to pass a unit watch keeping certificate on HMS Invincible,when she came from The Shipbuilder Vickers , I also realise ships that carry aircraft Need Avcat.
 
#8
Bollockspeak? More fitting description would be "wankspeak". Available in copious quantities within the hallowed halls of the House of Commons.....;)
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#12
...and their aircraft ran on thin air. Even nuclear-powered carriers have to replenish jet fuel every few days. I have been led to believe that a pair of jet fighters can consume as much fuel as the carrier from which they are operating. I'm sure other posters can elucidate.

It also appears that the Americans are becoming much more favourably inclined towards having conventionally powered carriers in future owing to the vast savings to be made in manpower, especially expensive nuclear SQEP (Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person) personnel, training, through-life costs, reactor decommissioning and after care.

This is worth reading in its entirety:



Incidentally, the STOVL F-35B will not need to retain the significant extra fuel required in the event of a 'bolter', i.e. the need to 'take' off' and go round again if it fails to catch an arrestor wire. The ability to 'stop then land' instead of 'land then stop' also means it will be able to operate in less favourable weather conditions than 'cat & trap' aircraft.
Couldn't they Air to Air refuel from RAF Tankers?
 

Guns

War Hero
Moderator
#13
I am not a complete numpty, as an ex clanky and one of the first people to pass a unit watch keeping certificate on HMS Invincible,when she came from The Shipbuilder Vickers , I also realise ships that carry aircraft Need Avcat.
So why post a bone comment????
 
#15
I would have thought that the option of Nuclear and cat's for the life of the ship would have been an option ,hull life 25-30 years ,aircraft life perhaps 10 years, before some came up with something better than F35.
 

Top