I could almost see Australia and Brazil getting into a bidding war like they did over RFA Largs Bay.

Bidding war for Largs Bay? There was one bid from each.

Wanshan,

We are at risk of going around in circles on this. Based on the fuel spec you linked to, those engines are capable of burning the thickest, nastiest residual fuel oils, as you would expect from a marine diesel engine. Western navies use high quality distillate fuels because those are compatible with Western gas turbines. I’m not pretending to know what the standard Russian naval fuel is, but I wouldn’t expect it to be identical to F-76. Russia may use different grades in different engine types: distillate in GTs, residuals in diesels and steam turbine plants, as at least some Western navies did in the past.

Are Mistrals, off the shelf, as specified for France, compatible with standard Russian naval fuels: I’ve no idea, but the Russian deputy PM says not. Is that plausible: yes. Can the engines fitted to Mistrals be made to be compatible with standard Russian navy fuels: yes.

For example, if Russian practice is to use residual fuels, these require heating in the tanks to get the oil warm enough to flow. Mistrals are almost certainly not fitted with heated tanks as standard as it isn’t necessary when you are burning F-76.

Am I off on a silly tack here and you actually know what the standard Russian naval fuels are?

List of RUSSIAN DIESEL POWERED ICEBREAKERS ….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers#Russia

What do they use ….

Something other than F-76. ‘Diesel’ in marine engineering terms can cover a real multitude of sins, from HFO to MGO.

The answer is to make the LHDs engines compatible with whatever the standard Russian Navy fuel is.

Stores ship.

I don’t see that mentioned anywhere. No mention of cargo holds or dry stores issuing rig. The BMT website does mention solid RAS reception, but not issuing capability. Yes, it can carry a few containers on deck, but a few containers doesn’t make a stores ship, see the Wave class.

Fleet Solid Support – or whatever this month’s name is – is a future part of the MARS programme.

This map is interesting. Can anyone tell me how I might find out what’s happening at the locations I’ve indicated? Can’t find anything on Google.

The eastern one is probably Spadeadam (though Otterburn range is closer to the position indicated). http://www.gl-nobledenton.com/en/consulting/SpadeadamTestSite.php

The western one is probably Dundrennan. Railgun development has been taking place there. May be involved in EMCAT work.

Navy News article on Protector, including a photo showing the repositioned flight deck: http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1193-a-first-for-hms-protector-a-last-for-hms-gloucester.aspx

You suppose AUstralia will also swoop up RFA Ft. George?

They have had or are having their small AORs altered to have double-hulls. Would they fork out for that on Fort George? Do they have a requirement for a new AOR? Largs Bay met a stated requirement, just a little earlier than planned.

There have been rumours of interest from Brazil and/or Chile, but I seriously doubt anyone will buy Fort George.

So whilst exacting figures are not available, they are offering a comparative economy example against the type 42 which should at least satisfy something of what is in question even if it is not accurate.

When you look at manufacturers’ quotes for car fuel consumption they are based on standardised conditions applied equally to all models of car. We certainly don’t know that the MOD writer pushing out the T45 blurb is comparing like with like when claiming 4x greater fuel efficiency. It really can’t be taken seriously as an accurate source without more data to back it up.