PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Future Carrier (Including Costs)
View Single Post
Old 19th February 2026 | 09:34
  #8432 (permalink)  
Not_a_boffin
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Originally Posted by ORAC
Note that they are not being bought and reactivated in support of RN fleet operations - unless the MOD wants to outbid others…
The MoD isn't going to bid for them for the simple reason that they're quite glad they're going. The reason they're going is largely down to their propulsion system.

1. It's electric and generates and distributes at 6.6kV, which means you need a specific engineering ticket to maintain and operate it. Trouble is that the RFA pay and conditions have deteriorated to such a degree that recruiting and retaining suitable engineering staff (with ticket) to operate the ships is very difficult, when commercial seafaring jobs are much better paid (and said tickets in high demand). That is why they've been laid up for the best part of ten years.
2. The plant is single shaft. That means that certain elements of the MoD have decided that - for reasons - it is unsafe for the ships to be used to replenish QEC (at least in an abeam connected style). This is despite the ships having historically refuelled USN carriers in the past and more pertinently, despite the recent Op Highmast deployment including PWLS replenishing abeam from single shaft US MSC ships. It remains to be seen whether this alters policy, but in any case, point 1 still applies.

It's an interesting model that Inocea are pursuing. I wasn't aware they'd gone that far, but it is in essence an Air Tanker facsimile for the RCN. Be interesting to see if NATO takes it up. Will entirely depend on whether they can overcome the engineering crewing constraints though.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Reply