#RFA tiderace | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

hudsonespie · 4 years ago

Text

Photos: Royal Navy Tracks Nine Russian Vessels Near UK Waters

Over the past two weeks, the Royal Navy has tracked nine Russian vessels around the UK. A Russian surfaced submarine, destroyer, corvette, patrol ship and their supporting tugs and supply ships were watched closely by eight Royal Navy ships, from the English Channel and the Celtic Sea to waters close to the west coast of Scotland. “This is why the Royal Navy is at sea every day, protecting the UK and our interests. Even with the pressures of Covid, we remain at short notice to respond to threats both in home waters and around the world. Despite the increase in Russian activity, both on the surface and underwater, we are always ready to respond," said First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin. Type 23 frigate HMS Northumberland watched the movements of the Udaloy-class destroyer Vice-Admiral Kulakov as she sailed northwest of the Outer Hebrides, off the west coast of Scotland. Patrol ship HMS Severn was on duty in the English Channel and Dover Strait, where she shadowed a surfaced Kilo-class submarine, the Stary Oskol, the corvette Boikiy, patrol ship Vasiliy Bykov and support ships. Severn was also on patrol as the Vice-Admiral Kulakov sailed through the Channel.

HMS Lancaster shadows the Russian corvette Boikiy (RN)

HMS Northumberland follows Vice-Admiral Kulakov (RN)

Vice-Admiral Kulakov from the bridge of Northumberland (RN)

Kulakov takes on fuel oil from a tanker in underway replenishment (RN) For some of the operation, the Russian ships sheltered from bad weather within the Baie de Seine, a bay in northern France, where Severn was joined by allied French Navy ships and aircraft. HMS Lancaster joined Severn in this operation, closely tracking Steregushchiy-class corvette Boikiy in the Channel and using her Wildcat helicopter to gather intelligence. “In very challenging conditions with rough weather, Severn and several other British and allied ships, have spent 20 days ensuring that Russian transiting warships remain under our watchful eyes," said Commander Philip Harper, commanding officer of HMS Severn.

Meanwhile, three Royal Navy warships – HMS Tyne, HMS Richmond and HMS Kent – combined to escort the same group of Russian ships as they operated in the Celtic Sea and approaches to the southwest coast of the UK. This task group was joined by RAF Typhoon and F-35s jets, plus tankers RFA Tideforce and RFA Tiderace, which kept the allied ships replenished throughout the operations and contributed to monitoring duties while in the Irish Sea.

This article appears courtesy of Royal Navy News and may be found in its original form here.

from Storage Containers https://maritime-executive.com/article/photos-royal-navy-tracks-nine-russian-vessels-near-uk-waters via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

defpost · 4 years ago

Text

RFA Tiderace Returns to Sea for Trials After Revamp

#RFATiderace returns to sea for trials after revamp.

The UK Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s second Tide-class replenishment tanker, RFA Tiderace (A137) left the best berth in Liverpool and returned to sea for trials after a revamp on Merseyside.

The 39,000-tonne vessel departed the Cruise Liner jetty on Liverpool waterfront to prepare for renewed front-line duties supporting Royal Navy operations around the globe.

The tanker completed an overhaul in the…

View On WordPress

0 notes

hudsonespie · 6 years ago

Text

Cammell Laird Welcomes RFA Tidespring Kick-Starting New 10-Year Through Life Support Contracts

The 39,000-tonne Tide-class tanker RFA Tidespring has moored at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, the UK for its inaugural docking period. Its arrival marks the start of two Through Life Support contracts that will see the UK shipyard and engineering company maintain nine vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) over the next 10 years.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced in October 2018 that Cammell Laird had been chosen to provide support to all four Tide class tankers – RFA Tidespring, RFA Tiderace, RFA Tidesurge and RFA Tideforce – following a competitive two-year tender process.

At the same time, the company was awarded a second 10-year contract that will see it continue to provide support for the vessels RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Fort Austin, RFA Fort Rosalie, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler, which it has done since 2008.

Image Credit: clbh.co.uk

Cammell Laird said winning the contracts will sustain more than 300 jobs at the company and across its supply chain, and create more than 100 apprenticeships.

RFA Tiderspring, which entered service in 2017 and is first in her class and her refit package will be carried out over the next four months involving survey work, and general repair and maintenance projects.

Tide class tankers are the newest addition to the RFA Flotilla, designed to supply the Royal Navy’s warships, including the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, with fuel and water while deployed on operations. They are as long as three jumbo jets lined up nose-to-tail, and can carry 19,000 metres cubed of fuel and 1,300 metres cubed of fresh water.

Image Credit: clbh.co.uk

David Farmer, Head of Commercially Supported Shipping at Defence Equipment and Support, the MOD’s procurement organisation, said: “The arrival of RFA Tidespring at Birkenhead signals the culmination of an extremely successful first 15 months at sea. Her initial deployments, including those alongside HMS Queen Elizabeth, have been marked by very positive feedback from RFA personnel – indeed, satisfaction with the Tide class has been growing appreciably since she entered service.

“With support for the class underway through the Future In-Service Support agreement we now look forward to Tidesurge and Tideforce, the final two ships in the fleet, entering service in the coming months.”

John Kennedy, MOD Programme Director at Cammell Laird, said: “It’s an exciting time for everyone, marking the beginning of another 10-year contract and what I’m sure will be another very successful period of Cammell Laird supporting the RFA Flotilla.

Image Credit: clbh.co.uk

“It was fantastic to secure work for the ships we’ve been responsible for since 2008, and the icing on the cake was also winning the Tide class tankers contract. This is the reward for succeeding in what was a highly competitive two-year tender process and we’re looking forward to getting started.

“The previous RFA contract serves as a fantastic foundation and it’s absolutely our intent to continue delivering continuous improvement, providing value for money for the UK taxpayer and maximising the availability of these ships for the RFA.”

Captain(E) RFA Terry Edwards, Group Technical Superintendent for Tide class tankers, commented:

“With RFA Tidespring, as the first of class, commencing her first docking period at Cammell Laird, and also as the first ship to do so under the recently awarded Through-Life Support contract, this is a great start to the next chapter in the company’s long relationship with the RFA and DE&S. Cammell Laird’s ability to begin work on the ship a month early also underpins the company’s agility in responding to the dynamic nature of ships’ programmes.”

As well as allowing Cammell Laird to invest further in its workforce and infrastructure, the new contracts will support the continuation of the firm’s apprentice training programme. The scheme takes in around 20 talented young people from the area each year. More than 250 apprentices have been recruited since 2008, with in excess of £18million invested in the apprentice programme.

Mr Kennedy added: “These contracts will secure jobs, bring money into the local economy and provide a bedrock for our apprentice training programme. It’s really good news for Birkenhead, Liverpool and the wider region, including all the local contractors providing marine support services. A lot of companies will benefit and this is the first of hopefully another 10 years of successful business with the RFA.”

Reference: clbh.co.uk

Report an Error

from Storage Containers https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/cammell-laird-welcomes-rfa-tidespring-kick-starting-new-10-year-through-life-support-contracts/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

jacknicholson1963 · 7 years ago

Text

The reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is not nuclear powered

Many people have wondered why the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers do not have nuclear propulsion like the US Navy’s Nimitz class ships. Here we consider the many good reasons why a conventional, although innovative propulsion system was selected instead.

Tactical

Range and Replenishment The primary advantage of a marine nuclear power plant is the unlimited range and available power it provides the ship. This range and power would be desirable for the QEC, but the costs and other factors largely outweigh these benefit. USN carriers are a few knots faster than the QEC, the speed of the ship can generate more wind over the deck to help heavily laden aircraft take off. This wind is less critical for QEC’s ski-ramp launched VSTOL aircraft.

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?

RFA Tiderace – carrier fuel station at sea. Note the two starboard side RAS rigs, ready to provide diesel and aviation fuel to the QEC. Photo: US Navy

Nuclear reactors cannot be quickly re-started from cold. A careful sequence of procedures is required to start the reactor and the steam plant to prevent heat stress from damaging the system. Since the 1970s when the RN began to move away from steam propulsion, it has enjoyed the benefit of gas turbine and diesel ships that can be started and shut down very quickly. This is a useful tactical advantage allowing quick departure from harbour when needed. It also has a lower manpower requirement as nuclear plants require constant monitoring, even when shut down.

Cats and steam Except for the newly commissioned USS Gerald R Ford, US Navy carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Nuclear propulsion has the advantage of providing plenty of steam for the catapults. The older generation of RN carriers had steam turbine propulsion and their boilers also provided steam for the catapults. If the QEC had been fitted with catapults and traps, the intention was to adopt the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) that has been developed in the US for the Ford class carriers. Considerable electrical power is needed but this system does not require steam, another reason that nuclear power is less critical. (Although EMALS offers a great leap in aircraft launching capability, the US Navy is struggling with developmental issues and the USS Ford may not be ready for combat operations until 2022 at the earliest). It is possible the QEC may one day be retrofitted with EMALS (Probably not in the next 20 years) but there is sufficient spare electrical generation capacity already available.

Practical

Building capacity and capability The only facility in the UK building nuclear-powered vessels is BAE Systems yard at Barrow. The Barrow site has been running at full capacity for the last 10 years constructing the Astute class attack submarines and that will continue into the future as work starts on the 4 Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarines. Barrow is probably the only UK site with the skills and experience that could have constructed a carrier reactor, although their workforce is very much focused on submarines. Even if Barrow could have fitted such work into its schedule, the hull sections containing nuclear power plants would have had to be transported by barge to Rosyth for the assembly – a potentially hazardous journey.

The UK has considerable experience building nuclear submarines but has never constructed a nuclear-powered surface ship. Theoretically, the PWR2 nuclear power plant fitted to the Vanguard and Astute class submarines could have been up-rated and adapted for use in the carrier. It would have required at least three PWR2 plants per ship, each of which generate around 27,500 shaft horse power. (The propulsion system of the QEC, as built today, can generate 100,000 shp). There would still have been considerable cost and complications in adapting the submarine plant and associated gearing and shaft arrangements for the ship. Alternatively, at great expense, an entirely new and more powerful reactor could have been developed specifically for the carriers.

Avoiding the French experience France completed their single nuclear-powered carrier, the Charles de Gaulle in 2001 but she took more than 11 years to build (QE took 8 years) The de Gaulle was delivered 5 years late, expensive and beset by technical problems with her propulsion. The K15 nuclear reactor design, derived from existing submarines, proved underpowered and inadequate shielding exposed crew members to doses of radiation that exceed regulations. France is already studying options for replacing the de Gaulle, a ship that has spent more time in dock than operational.

Nuclear engineers in short supply France struggled to build the de Gaulle, despite having a much larger nuclear industry than the UK, more nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians. The design and construction of two British nuclear carriers would probably have required expensively imported nuclear expertise from France or the US. The RN is already hard-pressed to find sufficient qualified personnel to man its existing fleet of 10 nuclear-powered submarines. In the current climate, there would be another struggle to recruit and retain more nuclear watch-keepers for two aircraft carriers.

Attractive conventional options Despite the unhappy experience with the Type 45 destroyers propulsion, advances in marine engine technology make conventional power attractive. Accumulated experience, extensive testing and the selection of proven low-risk engines will ensure that QEC is very unlikely to have similar problems. The CODLAG (combined diesel-electric and gas turbine) arrangement adopted by the QEC is both efficient, reliable and allows great design flexibility. By using electric motors to drive the propellers, the diesel and gas turbine generators can be placed where convenient, rather than having to sit on the shaft line, as in traditional designs. The gas turbines are actually sited inside the sponsons on the starboard side of the ship with their exhaust uptakes going through the two island structures immediately above. The saves internal volume, allowing for bigger hangars. Nuclear power obviously removes the need for uptakes and funnels entirely but modern gas turbines and electric motors have a very much higher power-to-weight ratio than a heavy nuclear plant with lead shielding and reduction gears. Servicing simple diesel engines is an entirely different prospect to maintaining a nuclear plant. The QE’s gas turbines are also easily accessible and can be replaced with new units in a matter of days if required.

The PWR2 reactor was designed not to need refuelling and to have a life of around 30 years. Unfortunately, HMS Vanguard’s reactor has required refuelling after 22 years service at considerable expense because it appears her PWR2 core H may not last as long as expected. Since the QEC have a design life of up to 50 years, if nuclear-powered they would need a mid-life reactor refuelling refit. Even if a reactor can be made to last for that long, refuelling is a colossally expensive process and could take the carrier out of commission for at 3 years.

Financial

The lifetime cost of a nuclear-powered vessel is much higher than that of a conventionally powered vessel. Initial construction outlay is also greater because of the physical complexity and regulatory framework that the builders would have to work within. The bill for filling up QE with diesel fuel runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds each time, but the total cost of installing, maintaining and disposing of a nuclear power plant over the life of the ship, would far exceed that of the fuel. Disposal of nuclear vessels also presents a significant problem. The US Navy benefits from a dedicated nuclear vessel disposal facility in Puget Sound and the waste is stored away from populated areas in Idaho, deep in the vast land mass of America. Rather embarrassingly, the UK has yet to completely dispose of a single decommissioned nuclear submarine, although tentative steps to start this process have finally been made. Disposal is slow, costly and the storage of nuclear waste is controversial. A nuclear-powered carrier would one day create another expensive decommissioning headache.

Political

Protest magnets Some nations will not allow a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessel within their territorial waters. This would not be a particular problem but highlights the additional political baggage and sensitivities that come with nuclear vessels. Aircraft carriers are high profile ships and are intended as a tool for trade and diplomacy in a way that secretive nuclear submarines actively avoid. There is a strong anti-nuclear movement and a nuclear-powered QEC would inevitably attract unwanted controversy and protest. In the very unlikely event the ship was sunk or damaged by enemy action or in a serious collision, the presence of a nuclear reactor presents a long-term environmental hazard that could leak radiation into the sea. While this calculated risk makes sense for submarines where there is no alternative source of air-independent propulsion that can provide the required performance, for a surface ship this is an avoidable risk.

Think of the paperwork… Sensibly, all British nuclear submarines and facilities are subject to strict regulation and inspection. There is no avoiding this complication that would add further manpower, cost and security overheads to an already complicated aircraft carrier programme. Nuclear-powered submarines have to make use of specially prepared “Z berths” when alongside in the UK. These berths have to be certified as safe and secure and the local authority is required to have plans in place in the very unlikely case of a nuclear accident. Although her size prevents her from entering many ports, a nuclear-powered QEC would be further restricted as to where she could dock, both in the UK and abroad. Maintenance of nuclear vessels in the UK can only be conducted at certified “X berths”. Currently, they are only available in Devonport and Faslane. As Portsmouth-based ships, there would be further considerable investment required for nuclear-certified infrastructure at Portsmouth.

The selection of conventional propulsion for the QEC will undoubtedly prove to be the correct choice over the lifetime of the ships and maybe a big factor in ensuring they are affordable to operate and remain in service for many decades. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a future aircraft carrier CO will be wishing his vessel was nuclear-powered.

Powering the Queen Elizabeth class (Rolls Royce PDF)

How to Control 50,000 Shaft Horsepower (G Captain)

from Save the Royal Navy http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/

#Save the Royal Navy

0 notes