MARS Naval Tankers Ordered

TARBATNESS
23rd February 2012, 07:52
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/February/22/120222-New-RFA

Molls-Phot
23rd February 2012, 10:25
Wonder what their names will be?

Tides, Rangers, Dales...or something less traditional and more PC?

senior pilot
23rd February 2012, 17:50
so much for british ship builders,one minute they tell the scottish people that if they get independence they would not give orders to a foriegn yard .but here they are giving orders to south korea. double standards don't come close

Molls-Phot
23rd February 2012, 19:05
When the four rival bidders were shortlisted in May 2008 in was quite obvious then that they would not be built in a British shipyard. And since no British shipyard put in a bid to build them you can hardly blame this government alone. Their duty is to award a contract for much needed ships that gives best value for the taxpayer.

jamesgpobog
23rd February 2012, 20:29
I'm wondering how it'll simultaneously refuel a carrier and a destroyer with kingposts on only one side...

stonkingjohn
25th February 2012, 01:27
I'm wondering how it'll simultaneously refuel a carrier and a destroyer with kingposts on only one side...

Totally agree. In my day carriers could only be refuelled from the port side of an RFA! The RAS gear appears to be only on the starboard side of these artists impressions.

jamesgpobog
25th February 2012, 01:47
Totally agree. In my day carriers could only be refuelled from the port side of an RFA! The RAS gear appears to be only on the starboard side of these artists impressions.

It was/(still is?) the same in the USN, carriers to port only, everything else port or starboard.

My guess is that it's just a crap rendering...

NickNZ
11th March 2012, 03:10
It was/(still is?) the same in the USN, carriers to port only, everything else port or starboard.

My guess is that it's just a crap rendering...

Or design. Designed down to a price.
The announcement annoys me, as it makes it sound to the man in the street, that there has been a lopt of investment in the RN/RFA, and future. when those who care, know that is not true.

King Ratt
11th March 2012, 15:58
I may be wrong and happy to be corrected but I thought carriers were refuelled on the RFA's port side because the carrier's command bridge was on the carrier's stbd side.

Satanic Mechanic
11th March 2012, 17:19
Or design. Designed down to a price.
The announcement annoys me, as it makes it sound to the man in the street, that there has been a lopt of investment in the RN/RFA, and future. when those who care, know that is not true.

Nah - its just a bad picture - reading the spec its all there

RetiredPMSO
11th March 2012, 21:03
I'm wondering how it'll simultaneously refuel a carrier and a destroyer with kingposts on only one side...

Looking at the BMT website (they designed the ships) it looks like two rigs stbd, one rig port.

hillshepherd
12th March 2012, 07:41
I may be wrong and happy to be corrected but I thought carriers were refuelled on the RFA's port side because the carrier's command bridge was on the carrier's stbd side.

You are right of course, King Ratt. Back in the glory days the supply ship was always guide and the carrier the approach ship. This was tactically slow as RAS had inevitably to be sequential. Then "Black Sam" Dunlop had the idea (around 1969) of the three ship carrier RAS, and if I remember correctly he persuaded the CO of HMS EAGLE or ARK ROYAL it was safe for the carrier to become guide and take fuel to starboard and stores to port. This was seen less as the heavy carriers went out of service but I do remember conducting such a RAS on my last voyage. This would be in 1991 and involved Regent, Ark Royal and an O Class. Over the last 40 years RFA bridge teams have become highly proficient at station keeping alongside large customers and I understand this practice will continue with the MARS ships. I believe the new carriers will normally be guide and take fuel on the port side, the tanker will be approach ship - hence the two RAS posts on the starboard side.

Pat Thompson
12th March 2012, 09:28
Greetings,

I suspect that the key words in this discussion is "Artist's Impression"

hillshepherd
12th March 2012, 11:08
Greetings,

I suspect that the key words in this discussion is "Artist's Impression"

Hardly, Pat. Members are naturally interested in the new ships and how they will work. The illustrations in circulation are mainly based on those produced by the builder, and in some of these the ship is seen from three angles, clearly showing one rig to port (hidden by the bridge in the starboard quarter view) and two to starboard. I am informed by a senior practitioner that the starboard rigs are for refuelling the QE Class, as I said in my previous post. For interest the three view picture is currently available on a Save the Royal Navy blog at http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/

LouisB
12th March 2012, 14:49
Hardly, Pat. Members are naturally interested in the new ships and how they will work. The illustrations in circulation are mainly based on those produced by the builder, and in some of these the ship is seen from three angles, clearly showing one rig to port (hidden by the bridge in the starboard quarter view) and two to starboard. I am informed by a senior practitioner that the starboard rigs are for refuelling the QE Class, as I said in my previous post. For interest the three view picture is currently available on a Save the Royal Navy blog at http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/

Rex,

Also the stowages and disposition, volumes and product of the ordered vessels together with one or two finer points have already been published in one of the recent defence/military sites that I was looking at a few weeks ago. This was one of the sites that seemed to have some knowledge - it's squirreled away under a sub heading which I forget.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Britains-Navy-Supplies-are-From-MARS-07313/?utm_medium=textlink&utm_term=continuereading&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_content=C-27Js+%7C+Carrier-Capable+MiG-29Ks+%7C+Aegis+Ashore+%7C+Daewoo+MARS+Controversy&date_sent=2012-03-01+14%3A34%3A19


Regards,

David Clarke.

(LouisB)

Satanic Mechanic
12th March 2012, 15:25
Its just one rendering where the port side post cant be seen.

Having looked at the spec and knowing DSME extremely well, they are a very high quality and reputable yard, they look like quality bits of kit. The RFA might be in for a bit of a surprise here, just so long as they send the right type of people out on the site and Bath takes a back seat.

LouisB
12th March 2012, 16:04
Its just one rendering where the port side post cant be seen.

Having looked at the spec and knowing DSME extremely well, they are a very high quality and reputable yard, they look like quality bits of kit. The RFA might be in for a bit of a surprise here, just so long as they send the right type of people out on the site and Bath takes a back seat.


In for a bit of a surprise?? Right type of people ??

How so? Please tell.


LouisB

Satanic Mechanic
12th March 2012, 17:00
In for a bit of a surprise?? Right type of people ??

How so? Please tell.


LouisB

Well you have never had a Korean built ship before for starters, There is a way of dealing with Koreans - I would recommend you do not send the type of peeps that were around the 'Waves'(Smoke). All peeps from Bath should be shot on sight.

hillshepherd
13th November 2012, 17:19
MARS Tankers to be given TIDE names. See http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/November/13/121113-RFA-Tide

dab
13th November 2012, 19:41
Rex, The link you highlight, quotes from of all people the Commodore of the RFA,( Bill Walworth), and he mentions "Tidespring" as an original "Tide" when she was in fact an improved Tide! What is going on here?
Regards,
Dave.

TARBATNESS
13th November 2012, 19:59
Good names and nice to see a mix of Original and Improved names. Pity the TIDEPOOL was not used.

BUGGINS
14th November 2012, 19:55
I thought Tiderace was renamed to avoid Italian connotations - Teeedyracchi ? tho` I suppose it might have been to alike Tidereach.

chadburn
14th November 2012, 20:23
Good names and nice to see a mix of Original and Improved names. Pity the TIDEPOOL was not used.

You must be in line for one of them surely?(Thumb)

LouisB
15th November 2012, 00:15
MARS Tankers to be given TIDE names. See http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/November/13/121113-RFA-Tide

From my point of view as electrical engineer, the' old' Tide names fill me with loathing. The hours required and conditions of working to keep them going were appalling and except for emergency requirements it is doubtful if they would be accepted today. I could say considerably more but it would probably upset the fond regard for the 'old days' that most of us hold - a horrible class of under maintained and badly designed vessels. Possibly manned and maintained to RN standards yes but MN standards of manning a big no no - unhealthy and dangerous! As for steaming under full NBCD re-circ conditions, what idiot thought that it was ever possible - my lungs still suffer. In those days of course there were civilian MN types responsible for running and maintaining fleet support vessels to what was required for a commercial MN ship. Fortunately however and after the Falklands business the RFA fleet came fully under CinC Fleet and the vessels were treated as military ships and all that was then involved. A lot has to be said for Gordon Butterwoth who long before had recognised the weaknesses in the peacetime RFA structure and against opposition did his best to re-organise things and succeeded in the full integration of the RFA as a fully integral part of the Naval Service.


LouisB. (Scribe)

NoR
15th November 2012, 18:24
When the four rival bidders were shortlisted in May 2008 in was quite obvious then that they would not be built in a British shipyard. And since no British shipyard put in a bid to build them you can hardly blame this government alone. Their duty is to award a contract for much needed ships that gives best value for the taxpayer.

It costs a lot of money to put in a bid on a relatively sophisticated ship. Our shipbuilders such as they have just given up. There are only so many times you can get kicked in the teeth (by your own govt) before you get the message.

Satanic Mechanic
15th November 2012, 19:17
Bit harsh on the UK yards there NoR , they are pretty busy with naval vessels to be honest and to be fair relatively simple tankers the likes of DSME can turn around without breaking a sweat. I was actually in that yard on Monday - if you haven't seen Korean yards - they are something to behold!!!!

TARBATNESS
16th November 2012, 10:55
You must be in line for one of them surely?(Thumb)

It would be nice and see me through to retirement!

LouisB
16th November 2012, 11:04
Bit harsh on the UK yards there NoR , they are pretty busy with naval vessels to be honest and to be fair relatively simple tankers the likes of DSME can turn around without breaking a sweat. I was actually in that yard on Monday - if you haven't seen Korean yards - they are something to behold!!!!

Also bearing in mind the design of the MARS vessels was carried out in the UK and that certain specialist items and military requirements worth many many millions has been given to UK contractors. So, not all bad eh.


LouisB. (Scribe)

Satanic Mechanic
16th November 2012, 15:20
Also bearing in mind the design of the MARS vessels was carried out in the UK and that certain specialist items and military requirements worth many many millions has been given to UK contractors. So, not all bad eh.


LouisB. (Scribe)

Also true - I am certain the UK industry will have done fine out of the design and outfit

A.D.FROST
16th November 2012, 16:30
We are getting the Crums.After all we as British tax payers are paying for the Lot! either way(?HUH)

Peter Eccleson
24th November 2012, 23:58
Aren't we lucky that the orders for the new 'Tides' didn't go to China! Comments on the reliability and effectiveness of the old Tide class may have been redeemed if they had.

GBXZ
25th November 2012, 18:47
Has the news reached the RFA Association ? - nothing on their web-site as yet.

Regds

NickNZ
26th November 2012, 08:03
What will they be used for? There are hardly enough RN ships for a tanker to fuel, and judging by recent photos, they seem to prefer to use foreign registered commercial tankers anyway.

A.D.FROST
1st February 2013, 15:19
Just to put every one in the picture and up to date(Pint)
33040

dab
1st February 2013, 19:19
Tidespring was not one of the original "Tide" class! She was the first of the "improved" Tide class!

G0SLP
1st February 2013, 19:34
Just seen this thread. FWIW, my present ship was built by DSME in 2005, and I cannot fault her design (built for Norwegian owners) or construction. They should do a first class job of these new RFAs.