RFA Tidespring handed over

Good news for the Royal Navy. DSME handed over Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring, the first of four new double hulled tankers designed to support the new Queen Elizabeth carriers. The ship was due to be handed over last January, but engineering problems, and new cable insulation regulations delayed delivery. The ship now heads to Falmouth, to have self protection systems, and classified military equipment installed, before entering service.

Three of the four ships ordered were due to be handed over already, but the MoD says they will still meet the target date for them entering service in 2018. She is expected to arrive at Falmouth in the spring. There was a lot of controversy over them being bid out to foreign companies, instead of for UK yards. Next, they plan on bidding out the Fleet Solid Supply Ships, to replace the Fort class ships.

LONDON - The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected.

“Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.

RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME).

www.defensenews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Daft question Zaph, and i think i have mentioned this before. If The Don cancels the new fighter is the carrier class any use (along with the supply ships) as they are going to be configured for VTOL with no arrester system on board due to cost?

I only ask as i have no idea if Trump is calling Boing's bluff about costs

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

It won't be cancelled. He can't unilaterally cancel it, and there are far too many congresscritters that are invested in it. But there's no reason that foreign countries couldn't get them although the cost would go up. In that case, though, they'd have to figure something else out to put on the decks.

Well with the Scottish independence questions running around at the time i'd doubt we would of had the ability to of geared up to produce them had the wee jock's north of the border become their own state anyway.

Never seen why we couldn't make the new carriers nuclear, would of saved probably loads of money over time....only need to visit the pump every 20+ years and we have nukes and people who know how to make stuff not go boom until requested.

Its a pity that we're not the number 1 maritime nation any more but since times have changed and we need to adapt.

a reply to: Maxatoria

It kind of balances out with a nuclear carrier. You have to spend more on pier side and shore based support equipment, along with refueling complexes. You still have to take aviation fuel to them as well. You save on fuel costs for the ship itself, but you spend more on maintenance and refueling them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Suppose its why if you have a nuclear powered carrier you need so many as many will be in the garage at any time and only having 2 carriers if its going to take 3-5 years you'll always have one unavailable for some reason.

a reply to: Maxatoria

When the Nimitz class do their refueling, they also do major overhauls on them. The entire process takes billions of dollars too. The RCOH for the Washington just received $3.5B for total budget for it. And if unexpected things come up, like with the Lincoln RCOH then you're looking at even more time, work, and money.