RFA Fort George

BUGGINS
25th February 2011, 18:33
She has now arrived in Langton Dock, Liverpool is early scrapping on the cards rather than possible resale ?

chadburn
25th February 2011, 19:41
Looks like the Australian's may want the "Largs Bay"

NickNZ
28th February 2011, 11:48
herChinese/Yanks/South American republic may want any of the Forts, provided the price is right.....come on down.

Jock3
1st March 2011, 13:14
Cameron has scrapped most of the navy - almost no need for an RFA (sarc.)

NickNZ
1st April 2011, 10:22
Can someone explain to me why the government would select Fort George over Fort Victoria? If they are both to the same specification, then surely they will both become "non-compliant" at the same time. In which case Fort Austin, or her sister ship (being much older, and therefore, even less "compliant"} should be headed for the vultures table?

OLD STRAWBERRY
1st April 2011, 10:48
Would it be that the New Forts are also Fuel carriers and are not Double Skinned?. Whereby the old Forts are only Dry Goods and may I say much more enjoyable to be in as well, for my part that is.

NickNZ
2nd April 2011, 10:10
Yes, but what I am asking is, why keep one 'single skinned oiler' when they are both going to be redundant? And where was the foresight of the ship architects?

Anixtu
2nd April 2011, 11:25
Yes, but what I am asking is, why keep one 'single skinned oiler' when they are both going to be redundant?

Because that is not the most immediate reason for decommissioning a new Fort. The most immediate reason is money. Fort George vs Fort Victoria will have been a matter of programme, refit cycle and material condition. IIRC Fort George was to have replaced Fort Austin in extended readiness this year anyway.

James_C
2nd April 2011, 11:46
And where was the foresight of the ship architects?

This class were conceived in the early 80s before there was talk of a single hull ban - something that only gained real momentum after Exxon Valdez.
As for the rest, well she's an in house MOD design. Say no more!

the brit
3rd April 2011, 20:45
Would it be that the New Forts are also Fuel carriers and are not Double Skinned?. Whereby the old Forts are only Dry Goods and may I say much more enjoyable to be in as well, for my part that is.

Back in the 80's i did 4 trips on RFA FORT AUSTIN, always enjoyable trips persian gulf and falklands great crew, merchant navy embarked RN from Culdrose and not forgetting the great characters from the STO(N) Rod Tiball,Jake Johnson, Terry Jewitt, just to name a few.

Compass Rose
10th November 2011, 21:54
Just an update, Fort George was transferred across the water from Liverpool docks yesterday and taken to Cammell Lairds, minus her name & pennant numbers.

Pat Kennedy
10th November 2011, 22:09
She is now in Cammell Laird's No 5 drydock. Still a fine looking vessel.
Pat

Compass Rose
10th November 2011, 22:18
Yes have to agree she certainly is, I wonder why the move ?

wildcat45
25th November 2011, 17:25
As has been said, which ship to go depends on where she is in the refit cycle. There is another reason which is sadly obvious. We lose a carrker (ARK R) and the support ship to go with her.

I always liked George. Used to see her growing on the stocks at Swan Hunter as I got the Metro to work.

One arrived in Norway Kristiansand I think. It was cold and snowy but the welcome on board the Fort was warm.

Even though I saw her built, she wasn't my favourite. Fort Vic was the ship I (As a civvy contracted to work with the RN during training) ras'd with most.

Great big good looking war tankers the pair of them.

Pat Kennedy
12th December 2011, 21:47
Fort George is now back in Liverpool docks after spending about two weeks in Cammel Lairds.
Pat