The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

mainly due to the harriers being used in AFG. so more harriers are available for ops

Since leaving A-Stan the RN is determined to keep it's Harrier crews carrier capable, dark blue day/night and light blue day. We will see increased cross-decking of UK personnel on US strike carriers as the RN prepares for the arrival of the QE class. I seriously doubt we will see GR7/9's return to A-Stan, that role will be filled by Tornado and eventually Typhoon. Harrier's will be a fixed feature onboard the dedicated UK strike carrier for the forceable future, this will be non-negotiable if we want to witness a seamless transition to the new QE class ships. The critical issue is ground support and aircrew experience operating at sea from a busy platform.

The four month 'Auriga' exercise in 2010 involving Ark Royal and a full compliment of Harriers (UK & USMC) is the beginning of the full-on 'beat-up' training in prep for the QE Class. Royal will also operate off Nova Scotia, Canada allowing it to utilise the BATUS ranges, which are the UK's primary live-firing training areas for its armoured battle groups. This will alow for all-arms CAS training based from a active carrier in support of a full armoured battle group (Chally, Warrior, CVRT's, AS90 - the full monty).

 

[StevoJH]

One must remember that there were so many Harriers that RN prematurely retired it's Sea Harriers, some of which were built in 1990's.

Being based on the Original Harrier GR.3 (Harrier I) the sea harriers could not be easily upgraded to the new mk.107 pegasus engine, and due to increases in weight over the life of the aircraft, the bring back load of the aircraft in "hot and high" conditions fell below the required limits and they were retired.

Financial constraints prevented the GR.7/9's from being fitted with the Blue Vixen radar from the FA.2, thus leaving the RN without a radar equiped fighter aircraft for the first time since the introduction of the De Halivand Sea Venom in the early 1950's.

 

[riksavage]

Being based on the Original Harrier GR.3 (Harrier I) the sea harriers could not be easily upgraded to the new mk.107 pegasus engine, and due to increases in weight over the life of the aircraft, the bring back load of the aircraft in "hot and high" conditions fell below the required limits and they were retired.

Financial constraints prevented the GR.7/9's from being fitted with the Blue Vixen radar from the FA.2, thus leaving the RN without a radar equiped fighter aircraft for the first time since the introduction of the De Halivand Sea Venom in the early 1950's.

Well if it was a choice between keeping the FA.2 or upgrading Harrier to GR9 standard, then the decision to go with the latter was the right one. The FA.2 would have been next to useless in A-STAN, where as the GR9 represents the most advanced STOVL CAS platform currently out there. By this time next year the T45 will provide coverage for the amphib group until the F35B's arrive. I can't see a scenario where the UK will have to go it alone, or where the T45's theatre defence is usurped, or where land based Typhoons will not be able to provide CAP support. The recent switch-over between Tornado and Typhoon shows just how quickly the UK can reinforce the Falklands, and if Iran kicks off the RN will be part of a much bigger USN battlegroup.

 

[swerve]

Being based on the Original Harrier GR.3 (Harrier I) the sea harriers could not be easily upgraded to the new mk.107 pegasus engine, and due to increases in weight over the life of the aircraft, the bring back load of the aircraft in "hot and high" conditions fell below the required limits and they were retired..

An attempt to keep the Sea Harriers operational at the increased weights & within required limits, by increasing engine power within the constraints imposed by the Sea Harrier airframe, effectively failed. The thrust increase was less than desired, & at the expense of greatly reduced time between engine overhauls. The expense of that modification, the increase in operating costs caused by it, & the estimated cost of correcting the reduced TBO, led to the decision that it was unaffordable to keep Sea Harrier in service.

 

[jaffo4011]

crying shame for the rn to lose a dedicated fighter in the sea harrier but understandable in respect of its engine problems.......dearly wish that the gr9's had been fitted with the shar's radar which was superb and could no doubt have handled attack profiles as well as its fighter mission.

brilliant news that at least one carrier will have a full complement of strike aircraft aboard which will at least look the part......nothing sadder than an aircraft carrier covered only in choppers!

 

[syncro]

How about the usual suspects in South America? Chile wouldn't benefit from an ex-RN carrier but this being South America this doesn't matter. Brazil might be quite good candidate. They operate ex-RN ships and a ex-RN Invincible (or why not even two, with one for operational duties and one for spares) would be quite good partner for Sao Paulo. An Invincible could be used as a helo deck for a carrier task force carrying either ASW or marine helicoters (together with whatever light intervention force Brazilians have).

BTW, is it because end of the Cold War that new Western subs are getting sail look more and more like Soviet designs?

AFAIK Brazil is unable to keep the Sao Paulo (ex-Foch) anywhere near operational. I'm pretty sure she rarely puts to sea.I don't think their A4's are up for any sort of combat either. I believe this ship will be decomissioned without having ever been truly combat ready, like the Minas Gerais ex WWII British Colossus light carrier. I don't think they have the resources to field both a CBG and an amphibious op.

Wouldn't they prefer something along the lines of Ocean anyways? Manpower is not a problem in Brazil, but maintenance and running costs are. Even if they wanted old harriers (frame flight hours be dammed) I don't think Brazil would ever want to purchase the Invincible(s) even with their big future GDP since they seem commited to CATOBAR already anyways.

Personally I don't see anyone buying any one of the three. If I'm right the UK will keep them in reserve until they rust away and then finally scrap them.

 

[swerve]

The best future use for the Invincibles would be as LPHs. They've been used in that role, on & off, for years, so we know it works. There won't be enough Harriers around to keep them operational as useful carriers when the RN gets rid of them, so it's LPH or scrap, IMO, & scrap is probably more likely.

 

[Sea Toby]

The best future use for the Invincibles would be as LPHs. They've been used in that role, on & off, for years, so we know it works. There won't be enough Harriers around to keep them operational as useful carriers when the RN gets rid of them, so it's LPH or scrap, IMO, & scrap is probably more likely.

I think Brazil will find it as difficult to keep the Skyhawks flying as much as keeping their carrier operational for much longer... Maybe Brazil could use an Invincible as a LPH. Possibly India might use an Invincible as a LPH as well until they can build a true LPH/LHD indigeniously. Most of the Harriers in operation have seen their better days. Every nation including the USA that are using Harriers are looking to replace them soon in the next ten or so years.

 

[riksavage]

The following Warship Tech link (dated May 2009) allows one to review some of the recently released initiatives relating to a number of RN projects, including CAMM, FSC & the QE Class.

Firstly, looks like C1 & C2 will definitely be fitted with CAMM (rather than ASTER15), cross decked from retiring T23's, which have been upgraded. According to the article 10 C1's and 8 C2's planned (which probably means the RN will end up with 6 & 4?). Makes sense the CAMM will have a planned range of 20km plus.

Secondly the QE class weapon handling system is explained, stressing the need to ensure munitions can be cycled through at maximum speed to ensure desired sortie rates are maintained. I think this exemplifies the difference between a LHP adapted to carry STOVL and a dedicated STOVL strike carrier. I would love to hear how the current generation of LHP's plan to handle and ship munitions from storage to deck during peak periods, if and when they embark STOVL in a high tempo environment.

Warship Technology May 2009

 

[kev 99]

The weapons handling system for QE class sound like a very top of the range design, my one big worry is that they are based on the luggage handling system for the new Heathrow terminal :crazy

Granted that does handle a far greater volume than the QE weapons handling system ever will

 

[FluffyThoughts]

I hate to say this but here goes....

The article suggests that C1 would appear in 2020, with C2 appearing around 2030, a whole generation after the last Type-23 was commissioned. Some one has cluster-f*cked up!

So I hope that Dr Fox will scrap the FSC/S2C2 project next summer and, in it's place, order a new batch of Type-23s. Get another dozen of them into service and then consider a new C1-like heavy-frigate.

Savings arising thereof could go towards another batch of Type-45s. Rant-over....

 

[StevoJH]

I hate to say this but here goes....

The article suggests that C1 would appear in 2020, with C2 appearing around 2030, a whole generation after the last Type-23 was commissioned. Some one has cluster-f*cked up!

So I hope that Dr Fox will scrap the FSC/S2C2 project next summer and, in it's place, order a new batch of Type-23s. Get another dozen of them into service and then consider a new C1-like heavy-frigate.

Savings arising thereof could go towards another batch of Type-45s. Rant-over....

The problem is that the UK shipyards are all tied up building QE and PoW until about 2015 now, nothing else can start construction until yards finish their final blocks for the CVF's.

 

[riksavage]

The problem is that the UK shipyards are all tied up building QE and PoW until about 2015 now, nothing else can start construction until yards finish their final blocks for the CVF's.

One assumes the idea is to upgrade the T23's with CAMM and new radars, which will be migrated across to C1/2.If this takes place, subject to existing wear and tear on the T23 hulls, I don't see a problem.

The Conservatives may yet cancel the QE's and introduce a cheaper, smaller LHP design. To save ship yard jobs the C1/C2 & C3's could then be brought forward whilst this cluster-f*ck is resolved.

One thing is certain the RAF/RN will be targetted in favour of the army, so post 2010 elections stand-by for a radical far-reaching defence review.

 

[swerve]

I hate to say this but here goes....

The article suggests that C1 would appear in 2020, with C2 appearing around 2030, a whole generation after the last Type-23 was commissioned. Some one has cluster-f*cked up!

So I hope that Dr Fox will scrap the FSC/S2C2 project next summer and, in it's place, order a new batch of Type-23s. Get another dozen of them into service and then consider a new C1-like heavy-frigate.

Savings arising thereof could go towards another batch of Type-45s. Rant-over....

If you look at the upgrade, building & retirement schedules, you realise it all fits together. As already said, current yard capacity is pretty well booked up for several years. The first C1s can slot in as CVF work is winding down, & enter service as the remaining T22s retire, starting about 2019/20.

In the meantime, the T23s will have been upgraded with new radars (Artisan) & CAMM. The first C1s will get new-build radars & CAMM, & 2087 sonars from the newest T23s, which will be changed from primarily ASW to GP frigates, performing the C2 role. As the upgraded T23s retire & are replaced by C1s, their Artisans, CAMM & 2087 sonars will be transferred. Eventually, the last T23s will be replaced by C2, starting in the late 2020s.

It'd be nice to have a big increase in frigate numbers, but there's no money at the moment, no room in the yards, & we'd have great difficulty manning them. Increasing shipbuilding capacity for a big surge of orders now, then cutting back later, would cost more, not save money. The MoD is currently trying to keep a steady flow of work, to keep the yards in business & able to meet RN needs, at minimum cost. Take into account budgets & industrial realities, & the RN is, IMO, following roughly the right track, though like you, I'd like to see more T45s. Would need more money, though.

 

[davros]

One assumes the idea is to upgrade the T23's with CAMM and new radars, which will be migrated across to C1/2.If this takes place, subject to existing wear and tear on the T23 hulls, I don't see a problem.

The Conservatives may yet cancel the QE's and introduce a cheaper, smaller LHP design. To save ship yard jobs the C1/C2 & C3's could then be brought forward whilst this cluster-f*ck is resolved.

One thing is certain the RAF/RN will be targetted in favour of the army, so post 2010 elections stand-by for a radical far-reaching defence review.

I doubt it would save much money cancelling CVF the steel is already cut, the first small block for QE has already been completed and almost all the contracts have been put out. It would cost well loads of money to cancel all the contracts skip the parts that have already been built, start on a new design re award new contracts cut new steel and re start construction, it wouldn’t be worth the hassle. I am sure QE will be built as construction is already underway but I wouldn’t be surprised if the cons tried to can POW. Lets face it if they did decide to cancel QE (which I am sure they wont) they will not build anything instead they will say that the Type 45 will provide the fleets air defence.

 

[overlander]

I doubt it would save much money cancelling CVF the steel is already cut, the first small block for QE has already been completed and almost all the contracts have been put out. It would cost well loads of money to cancel all the contracts skip the parts that have already been built, start on a new design re award new contracts cut new steel and re start construction, it wouldn’t be worth the hassle. I am sure QE will be built as construction is already underway but I wouldn’t be surprised if the cons tried to can POW. Lets face it if they did decide to cancel QE (which I am sure they wont) they will not build anything instead they will say that the Type 45 will provide the fleets air defence.

If the conservatives leaves Britain without carriers or at least they don,t replace them with LPH or LHD,s able to embark f 35 for power projection this would be the final of the R.N as one of the most powerful navies in the world, I don,t think it will not happen, they want to save money and i understand it but to cancel the carriers without replacement it would be a catastrophe, in my opinion even if they decide to cancel the carriers after so much money expended on them plus the time to develop and build a new design in my opinion it would not be rentable but with the obsession of british politicians to cut the navy everything is possible.

 

[harryriedl]

I doubt it would save much money cancelling CVF the steel is already cut, the first small block for QE has already been completed and almost all the contracts have been put out. It would cost well loads of money to cancel all the contracts skip the parts that have already been built, start on a new design re award new contracts cut new steel and re start construction, it wouldn’t be worth the hassle. I am sure QE will be built as construction is already underway but I wouldn’t be surprised if the cons tried to can POW. Lets face it if they did decide to cancel QE (which I am sure they wont) they will not build anything instead they will say that the Type 45 will provide the fleets air defence.

Its one contract the two ships and all the orders have been for the two ships and cutting defense is very difficult with Afghanistan and and officers who slag off the government. Canceling POW would be as difficult as canceling QE. Their safe Trident replacement I expect to be put on a go slow rather than canceled.

 

[riksavage]

If the conservatives leaves Britain without carriers or at least they don,t replace them with LPH or LHD,s able to embark f 35 for power projection this would be the final of the R.N as one of the most powerful navies in the world, I don,t think it will not happen, they want to save money and i understand it but to cancel the carriers without replacement it would be a catastrophe, in my opinion even if they decide to cancel the carriers after so much money expended on them plus the time to develop and build a new design in my opinion it would not be rentable but with the obsession of british politicians to cut the navy everything is possible.

The issue here is not the cost of the carriers themselves, but the knock-on implications, from MASC, F35B numbers, MARS, escorts and everything else. The problem with carriers is whilst they bring unprecedented power-projection capabilities to the table they also represent the number one target in a conventional engagement. Particularly from any submarine threat. It takes a lot of AsW assets to mitigate the threat represented by a single modern, well crewed sub.

The UK could save cost by building two 40,000 tonne LHP's based on the USMC Wasp class concept, but using a higher degree of automation to reduce manning. This will allow for a reduced number of F35B purchases. These platforms are designed to support both helo and F35B operations. The current UK policy is to have one LHP and one strike carrier deployed with Harrier at any one time. This is now the case with Ocean currently exercising with Apache / Merlin (see link) and an invincible class designated carrier carrying a light / dark blue GR9 light strike component (see link). By building two 40K tonne vessels, the RN will continue to be the predominant Navy in Europe, these assets and associated amphibious vessels can be protected by the planned T45's (five operational, one in reserve / maintenance), and upgraded T23 (CAMM capable) AsW force. A lower cost 40,000 tonne platform can then be ordered later down the line to replace Ocean, the same way the existing vessel was based on the Invincible hull design.

All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

Lusty Update : HMS Illustrious : Aircraft Carriers : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

Britain is maintaining, equipping and supporting what will soon represent a divisional strength of troops in A-Stan. This will continue to be a priority. Lessons learnt in-theatre are already being passed back down the line and priorities will change as the importance of an evolving asymmetrical doctrine complimented by the increasing us of unmanned vehicles starts to dictate future budget decisions. As one senior General recently commented 'we are reaching another horse vs. tank moment', people have got to start looking to the future of warfare not the past.

At the end of the day it's about having an appropriate tri-service balance.

 

[StevoJH]

The UK could save cost by building two 40,000 tonne LHP's based on the USMC Wasp class concept, but using a higher degree of automation to reduce manning.

Before the contracts were signed, possibly, now? No.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Sorry, but weren't (should be aren't, but the pitch is now scuppered if the above postings are to be believed) BAe-Systems offering the Type-23 to Algeria? [Or is it Morocco?] If we can offer new-builds against FREMM, why can't HM-Navy not get a dozen more? :whip