MARS Naval Tankers Ordered - Ships Nostalgia
21:58

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

MARS Naval Tankers Ordered

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 23rd February 2012, 07:52
TARBATNESS's Avatar
TARBATNESS TARBATNESS is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Deck
Active: 1974 - 2017
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
My location
Posts: 6,923
MARS Naval Tankers Ordered

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and...120222-New-RFA
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23rd February 2012, 10:25
Molls-Phot Molls-Phot is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 65
Wonder what their names will be?

Tides, Rangers, Dales...or something less traditional and more PC?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23rd February 2012, 17:50
senior pilot senior pilot is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
My location
Posts: 1,569
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23rd February 2012, 19:05
Molls-Phot Molls-Phot is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 65
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23rd February 2012, 20:29
jamesgpobog's Avatar
jamesgpobog jamesgpobog is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Navies
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - 1976
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,523
I'm wondering how it'll simultaneously refuel a carrier and a destroyer with kingposts on only one side...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 25th February 2012, 01:27
stonkingjohn stonkingjohn is offline  
Member
Organisation: Royal Fleet Auxilary
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - 1974
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesgpobog View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25th February 2012, 01:47
jamesgpobog's Avatar
jamesgpobog jamesgpobog is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Navies
Department: Engineering
Active: 1970 - 1976
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonkingjohn View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11th March 2012, 03:10
NickNZ's Avatar
NickNZ NickNZ is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
My location
Posts: 5,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesgpobog View Post
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.
__________________
NickNZ

Proud to be a Kiwi Janner
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11th March 2012, 15:58
King Ratt's Avatar
King Ratt King Ratt is offline  
King Ratt
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 1,885
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11th March 2012, 17:19
Satanic Mechanic's Avatar
Satanic Mechanic Satanic Mechanic is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickNZ View Post
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
__________________
The measure of a life
is a measure of love and respect
So hard to earn, so easily burned
In the fullness of time
A garden to nurture and protect
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11th March 2012, 21:03
RetiredPMSO RetiredPMSO is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesgpobog View Post
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.

Last edited by RetiredPMSO; 12th March 2012 at 09:26..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12th March 2012, 07:41
hillshepherd hillshepherd is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ratt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12th March 2012, 09:28
Pat Thompson's Avatar
Pat Thompson Pat Thompson is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
My location
Posts: 3,265
Greetings,

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

Pat Thompson
Fair Winds and Following Seas

You can't get enough photos of "O'Boats"
www.rfa-association.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Royal-...44215142275876
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12th March 2012, 11:08
hillshepherd hillshepherd is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Thompson View Post
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/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12th March 2012, 14:49
LouisB's Avatar
LouisB LouisB is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1964 - 1995
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillshepherd View Post
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/...1+14%3A34%3A19


Regards,

David Clarke.

(LouisB)
__________________
R814683
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12th March 2012, 15:25
Satanic Mechanic's Avatar
Satanic Mechanic Satanic Mechanic is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,143
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.
__________________
The measure of a life
is a measure of love and respect
So hard to earn, so easily burned
In the fullness of time
A garden to nurture and protect
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12th March 2012, 16:04
LouisB's Avatar
LouisB LouisB is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1964 - 1995
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satanic Mechanic View Post
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
__________________
R814683

Last edited by LouisB; 12th March 2012 at 16:16..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12th March 2012, 17:00
Satanic Mechanic's Avatar
Satanic Mechanic Satanic Mechanic is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisB View Post
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'. All peeps from Bath should be shot on sight.
__________________
The measure of a life
is a measure of love and respect
So hard to earn, so easily burned
In the fullness of time
A garden to nurture and protect
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13th November 2012, 17:19
hillshepherd hillshepherd is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
MARS Tankers to be given TIDE names. See http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and...21113-RFA-Tide
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13th November 2012, 19:41
dab dab is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 365
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 13th November 2012, 19:59
TARBATNESS's Avatar
TARBATNESS TARBATNESS is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Deck
Active: 1974 - 2017
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
My location
Posts: 6,923
Good names and nice to see a mix of Original and Improved names. Pity the TIDEPOOL was not used.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14th November 2012, 19:55
BUGGINS BUGGINS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 681
I thought Tiderace was renamed to avoid Italian connotations - Teeedyracchi ? tho` I suppose it might have been to alike Tidereach.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14th November 2012, 20:23
chadburn chadburn is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun Jones View Post
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?
__________________
Geordie Chief

From Grey Funnel to any Funnel, just show him/ me the money Mabel
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15th November 2012, 00:15
LouisB's Avatar
LouisB LouisB is offline  
Senior Member
Active: 1964 - 1995
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillshepherd View Post
MARS Tankers to be given TIDE names. See http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and...21113-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.
__________________
R814683

Last edited by LouisB; 15th November 2012 at 00:49..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15th November 2012, 18:24
NoR's Avatar
NoR NoR is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Deck
Active: 1963 - 1979
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molls-Phot View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two new ships ordered for Princess Cruises fred henderson News and Views from the Shipping World 3 22nd February 2010 17:54
Framing of charges ordered in 1996 Malta boat tragedy case shamrock News and Views from the Shipping World 0 1st July 2009 16:49
Newlyn fish firm W. Stevenson & Son ordered to pay 710,000 for quota scam shamrock News and Views from the Shipping World 5 18th June 2009 21:04
Aircraft carriers lifts ordered from Scottish firm ( Shipping Times ) Gavin Gait News and Views from the Shipping World 1 11th April 2008 06:22
More cruise ships ordered for Germany's AIDA Cruises fred henderson News and Views from the Shipping World 0 14th December 2007 11:48



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.