Why do Frigates need tugs?

[Habebty]

Posting this here as I don’t think many read the big ship bit of the forum…
Whilst sat on my boat in the sunshine enjoying a nice cold cider in Royal Clarence, one of Her Majesty’s frigates came into Pompey with 3 tugs in attendance and attached with loose lines. Bearing in mind the much larger Brittany Ferries seem to manage the same entrance sans tugs got me wondering if this harks back to the RN parking the old Vanguard at Fort Blockhouse and subsequent fear of a repeat very public faux pas?
( I get that frigates don’t have bow thrusters so can’t park themselves like most coasters et al but why the escort into the harbour?)

 

[capnsensible]

They are full of stuff that could do Big Bang. To avoid the risk should propulsion or steering fail, tugs are employed as a safety thing.

Which I think is a Good Thing.

 

[Habebty]

Fair enough

 

[PeterV]

They have propellers on the end of shafts, no azimuthing or tunnel thrusters.

 

[Stemar]

Also, they're long and thin, which means twin props don't work very well to turn the ship.

Incidentally, the ferry captains are all qualified pilots for the ports they use.

 

[Kukri]

But … three ?

For a tiddler with a high power to weight ratio?

Any day of the week you can see tankers and gas carriers with a single screw, no bowthruster, a low power to weight ratio, full of stuff that might go bang, berthing and departing with two tugs.

The tugs don’t belong to the Navy; they have been “privatised”…

 

[ashtead]

I guess the Brittany ferries get more practice and can be delayed etc while frigates have to be berthed to some form of timetable .

 

[Stemar]

I guess the Brittany ferries get more practice and can be delayed etc while frigates have to be berthed to some form of timetable .

They're also a lot more manoeuvrable. I was on one waiting in Portsmouth Harbour for a delayed ferry to leave. It was blowing F7-8, but they just held it there, scarcely moving. When we went in, again, no fuss, straight in, slow and steady.

I'd guess that the cost of tugs and pilots on ferries would make them uneconomic to run

 

[DFL1010]

Generally the ports with large amounts of naval/RFA movements will have some kind of service agreement for tug operations (either movements or pushing up), so the cost is not directly a factor. And, of course, if anything went wrong the first question the soon to be ex Captain would be asked is "why didn't you take tugs", but unlike for commercial ships, they won't get a chat for spending too much money on tugs.

Also, bear in mind that RN Captains are generally less experienced in ship handling than their MN counterparts, due to fewer berthing moves whilst at sea, and shore jobs etc.

Also, they're long and thin, which means twin props don't work very well to turn the ship.

Incidentally, the ferry captains are all qualified pilots for the ports they use.

Needn't necessarily be the captain that holds a PEC. The Pilotage Act was recently changed such that PECs can be issued to any Deck Officer, rather than the old system of Master or Chief Officer only.

And, of course, HM ships are often exempted from having to take a pilot (although of course see the above point about if it all goes wrong).

 

[johnalison]

Frigates are quite expensive, so I'm told.

 

[DFL1010]

Frigates are quite expensive, so I'm told.

As opposed to...?

 

[sarabande]

Perhaps the Serco contract for berthing HMGreyFunnel says something like "provide proper support" and Serco decide they might as well give the tug crew practice, just in case there are several simultaneous demands on their services ?

 

[AngusMcDoon]

As opposed to...?

Anderson 22's.

 

[newtothis]

As opposed to...?

As opposed to pretty much any bit of commercial steel.
Type 26 Frigate: c.$1.4bn,
Biggest commercial ships*: $140m-$180m

* some exceptions for cruiseships, for example, but that's more about the bling.

 

[capnsensible]

All about SERCO:

Google Image Result for https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/e8200297/800wm

 

[capnsensible]

All about warship moves:

Shipping Movements and Planned Diving | Royal Navy

Note that you can see Pompey, Plymouth and Faslane. Limited time frame though.

 

[DFL1010]

As opposed to pretty much any bit of commercial steel.
Type 26 Frigate: c.$1.4bn,
Biggest commercial ships*: $140m-$180m

* some exceptions for cruiseships, for example, but that's more about the bling.

Still meets the criterion 'quite expensive' in my book. Not to mention, that's avoiding the value of cargo.

If you're trying to suggest that there's no business case for using tugs on commercial shipping, then I'd disagree.
If you're trying to suggest that one very expensive thing is even more expensive than another very expensive thing, then I'm afraid I don't follow the relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Biggles Wader]

They need tugs because they have long keels and crap rudders hanging off the back. Fin and spade is the way to go.

 

[Never Grumble]

Introduction of bow sonar was when it first started to happen to ensure you didn't ram that into the jetty or the floating wooden catamarans (pontoon type fenders) and damage it. Much easier to get pulled off and pushed on by tugs. And of course no bow or stern thrusters, which I should imagine are down to noise signature issues. Just common sense really. I used to enjoy standing on the bridge roof controlling the tugs.

 

[CM74]

Three is certainly unusual, as they can be shifted without any propulsion with 2 tugs quite happily!
It's quite possible it could have been some sort of training exercise either for the ship, tugs or pilot - as stated before the tugs are effectively already paid for regardless. Perhaps in preparation for something bigger due to visit.

Saying that, they do use 3-4 tugs for the bigger RN/RFA ships going into devonport, while similarly sized commercial ships would use 2 max. (though theirs are less powerful than their size suggests).