The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Bonza]

1805, can you please being using the quote system properly when you post? This is a very interesting thread to read, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between quotes and responses in your posts, particularly when quote tags are broken or you respond within the body of a quote itself, thus making it appear as though people are quoting themselves or other posters when they respond in kind to your post. I know it's a bit more effort but it would make for much easier reading. Thanks mate

 

[1805]

1805, can you please being using the quote system properly when you post? This is a very interesting thread to read, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between quotes and responses in your posts, particularly when quote tags are broken or you respond within the body of a quote itself, thus making it appear as though people are quoting themselves or other posters when they respond in kind to your post. I know it's a bit more effort but it would make for much easier reading. Thanks mate

Yes just read it again and it does look confusing, I have had a go at correcting.

 

[deepsixteen]

British GDP decreased in 2009. It's growing again now.

The only other years since 1960 in which it decreased were 1974, 1975, 1980, 1981 & 1991.

As the conversation is about defence spending I thought it was obvious that we were talking GDP as a % spent on defence

 

[swerve]

As the conversation is about defence spending I thought it was obvious that we were talking GDP as a % spent on defence

No, it was not at all obvious.

 

[deepsixteen]

1805 Said
The T42 took the place of the T82 which didn't have layered defence. The Counties were nice looking ships, but a disaster for the RN. Both Sea Slug & Sea Cat were completely hopeless, even for the threats they faced at the time; leaving this ships virtually undefended. The BBC did a Panorama programme in the 60s on how poor they were, which the MOD tried to suppress. With their big crews, steam plant and being unable to defend themselves let alone others, the RN could not wait to get ride of them.

Counties were designed and built at a time when electronics missiles propulsion were evolving very quickly, type 82 was to replace them, it was however only a one of a kind as politicians cut funding and requirement was for CVA01 escort which was not built so the 42’s replaced the counties. Incidentally when designed using gas propulsion was quite novel, you are correct they were designed in another age when manpower was not so critical, you also may be surprised to hear Panorama and the BBC sometimes get things wrong the good thing about the counties was the layered defence the point you continue to ignore, my original comments still stand.

1805 Said
The T42 did actually achieve exports (if you exclude minesweepers the last new RN designs?). Had the deal with the Dutch on Broomstick gone ahead, they would have had decent radar. BTW the RN did not fit better radars as a result of the Falklands; the Batch 2 had them and performed better than the Batch 1.

True the poor initial radar fit was acknowledged prior to the Falklands but you ignore the other points I make as to why the type 42’s design was poor as initially produced, as ever I point out they evolved into a much better design closer to the original.

1805 Said
On Sea Wolf record, both T22 where damaged by aircraft that where so close, there is little doubts if an Exocet had been fired at them, they would have had no more chance of survival than a T42. The later pairing with T42s did not deliver any better results, just done out of desperation.
The T42 stayed in service because they had something the T22 did not have, a powerful area missile.

I have not mentioned Sea Wolf but again it has evolved into a decent weapon system as computer systems improved over time nothing like real ops to show the demerits of a system (or the merits of Sea Skua) hence the need for layered defences.
The 22's might well have got the exocet if it came close enough to them I think I remember one of the 42's claiming one with the 4.5! :eek

There are many things that could have improved the T42 at far less cost, than fitting Sea Wolf. If they had not fitted the 4.5” and instead installed an OTO 76mm and a Phalanx, you would have improved top weight and capability significantly.

But they didn’t they were to busy saving money (new systems new expense) because that’s what the treasury wanted along with selling the invincibles which will be as much if not more of a mistake today as it was then if rumors re selling the QE's to India are correct. What price energy security then people!

I have said before, in view of the tight funding the RN would have been better off not developing Sea Wolf and focusing getting Sea Dart right, and buying or even developing their own Gatling CIWS, which could have been retrofitted more easily.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing (we all use it) but as I have said before prior to the events of 1982 those of us serving were saying that the type 42 was under armed and how muich we wanted a seawolf fitted.

 

[deepsixteen]

No, it was not at all obvious.

Sorry:goodbad

 

[1805]

1805 Said
The T42 took the place of the T82 which didn't have layered defence. The Counties were nice looking ships, but a disaster for the RN. Both Sea Slug & Sea Cat were completely hopeless, even for the threats they faced at the time; leaving this ships virtually undefended. The BBC did a Panorama programme in the 60s on how poor they were, which the MOD tried to suppress. With their big crews, steam plant and being unable to defend themselves let alone others, the RN could not wait to get ride of them.

Counties were designed and built at a time when electronics missiles propulsion were evolving very quickly, type 82 was to replace them, it was however only a one of a kind as politicians cut funding and requirement was for CVA01 escort which was not built so the 42’s replaced the counties. Incidentally when designed using gas propulsion was quite novel, you are correct they were designed in another age when manpower was not so critical, you also may be surprised to hear Panorama and the BBC sometimes get things wrong the good thing about the counties was the layered defence the point you continue to ignore, my original comments still stand.

1805 Said
The T42 did actually achieve exports (if you exclude minesweepers the last new RN designs?). Had the deal with the Dutch on Broomstick gone ahead, they would have had decent radar. BTW the RN did not fit better radars as a result of the Falklands; the Batch 2 had them and performed better than the Batch 1.

True the poor initial radar fit was acknowledged prior to the Falklands but you ignore the other points I make as to why the type 42’s design was poor as initially produced, as ever I point out they evolved into a much better design closer to the original.

1805 Said
On Sea Wolf record, both T22 where damaged by aircraft that where so close, there is little doubts if an Exocet had been fired at them, they would have had no more chance of survival than a T42. The later pairing with T42s did not deliver any better results, just done out of desperation.
The T42 stayed in service because they had something the T22 did not have, a powerful area missile.

I have not mentioned Sea Wolf but again it has evolved into a decent weapon system as computer systems improved over time nothing like real ops to show the demerits of a system (or the merits of Sea Skua) hence the need for layered defences.
The 22's might well have got the exocet if it came close enough to them I think I remember one of the 42's claiming one with the 4.5! :eek

There are many things that could have improved the T42 at far less cost, than fitting Sea Wolf. If they had not fitted the 4.5” and instead installed an OTO 76mm and a Phalanx, you would have improved top weight and capability significantly.

But they didn’t they were to busy saving money (new systems new expense) because that’s what the treasury wanted along with selling the invincibles which will be as much if not more of a mistake today as it was then if rumors re selling the QE's to India are correct. What price energy security then people!

I have said before, in view of the tight funding the RN would have been better off not developing Sea Wolf and focusing getting Sea Dart right, and buying or even developing their own Gatling CIWS, which could have been retrofitted more easily.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing (we all use it) but as I have said before prior to the events of 1982 those of us serving were saying that the type 42 was under armed and how muich we wanted a seawolf fitted.

How are they under armed compared to the T82 they have a slightly smaller magazine.

Two layers is no go if both don't work, and if you can't afford to build both focus on one and get it right.

I think the Gatling CIWS came from the Russians first, but the RN should have been away of the issue, they were after all fitting Exocet to our ships. This was not hindsight for eveyone the fit ot the Perry's and Kortenears/Bremen was 76mm as DP/AA gun.

Apart from being bad seaboats they were good ships that gave the RN numbers, 14 T42 v 8 T82. All I am saying is lay off them.

Radical would have been 28 T42 on the T22 hull, it would have been much cheaper. Long production run and only one weapons fit.
.

 

[deepsixteen]

How are they under armed compared to the T82 they have a slightly smaller magazine.
Two layers is no go if both don't work, and if you can't afford to build both focus on one and get it right.

I am not comparing them to the unique type 82 you are. I am comparing them to the counties larger magazine, with the crated stowage if memory serves (could be wrong long time ago), and three layers Slug, 4.5mk 6, (I do know the mk8 had a limited AA capacity and the mk6 wasnt brilliant) and 2 Sea Cat systems which in the gws22 mod2 guise was effective but not a fast enough missile and 20mm’s. it also had ASM 4 Exocet and 2 sets of STWS tubes plus an ASW helicopter. All systems had dated rapidly as did all warships of that generation.

I think the Gatling CIWS came from the Russians first, but the RN should have been away of the issue, they were after all fitting Exocet to our ships. This was not hindsight for eveyone the fit ot the Perry's and Kortenears/Bremen was 76mm as DP/AA gun.

But not the RN as the treasury did not have the funds (hence the batch 1) as I understand the period, all of this is hindsight by the way we are talking about what ifs are we not.

Apart from being bad seaboats they were good ships that gave the RN numbers, 14 T42 v 8 T82. All I am saying is lay off them.

I repeatedly state that they evolved into good ships but I cannot change the fact that the much reduced at the treasury’s insistence batch 1 were a poor design and considered to be under armed by me and many of my shipmates for examples of problems see earlier posts.

Radical would have been 28 T42 on the T22 hull, it would have been much cheaper. Long production run and only one weapons fit.

For the RN the type 22 was radical (an “all missile ship”) but also viewed at the time as under armed by some of my colleagues in the newly formed WE branch who thought correctly that the fire control computer was the weak link (it allegedly crashed at the wrong moment fairly frequently but we still wanted it). For me radical would have been the larger batch three hull with a multi purpose roll incorporating the dart in the forward Sea Wolf position preferably VLS but probably as was fitted to the 42’s but all these things are speculation for me as I never set foot on a 22.

Back to the present I continue to hope that the country gets the versatile and far reaching forces it deserves but the present portents do not look good and memories of John Nott and pre 82 are not good other than for the pay rise.:frosty

 

[StevoJH]

Except the Sea Wolf mounts on the T22 do not have magazines attached to them. They had to be manually loaded from magazines located elsewhere on the ship. So adding Sea Dart Forward would have resulted in an entirely different and much larger ship. Not to mention the weight and space that would need to be allocated to the illuminators.

You'd probably be talking a ship the size of the T45.

 

[deepsixteen]

Except the Sea Wolf mounts on the T22 do not have magazines attached to them. They had to be manually loaded from magazines located elsewhere on the ship. So adding Sea Dart Forward would have resulted in an entirely different and much larger ship. Not to mention the weight and space that would need to be allocated to the illuminators.

You'd probably be talking a ship the size of the T45.

Type 22 is larger than the 42 so I would expect it to be able to cope with the directors and the size of the dart magazine plus handling gear but as I say never been on one so unsure re internal layout but I would have expected forward and aft deep magazines so you would use the forward one for dart and I did suggest the batch three hull which has additional space.

 

[riksavage]

Unsubstantiated rumours abound (Times UK) that due to ongoing problems with the F35B (reliability), escalating costs and potential delays in operational acceptance now means Super Hornets are back in the frame as a serious alternative. Possible reasons:

RAF personnel are already evaluating and flying the aircraft in the US;

EMCAT development is coming along nicely and is now a genuine alternative to steam;

Super Hornet is available now, Pilots can be fast-tracted through training once the Tornado sqn's are scrapped (imminent);

Cheaper option and less risk than F35B in a climate where cost overruns are no longer tolerable. The Trident replacement factor means the UK can no longer afford to take risks on an airframe, which could spiral out of control financially;

Will allow GR9's to be retired earlier than planned, and

SH sqn's can be rolled out at the same time as the first QE avoiding embarrassing scenes of an empty flat-top.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

As at Mar 2010:
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/JointALSF/Joint_Testimony032410.pdf

F-35B IOC: 2012
F-35C IOC: 2016

Even if the F-35B IOC slips a year (which there is no indication), its still going to have an IOC earlier than the QE CVF.

The only way the RN is going to get F-35Cs is if they are willing to wait to 2016 and the F-35B gets scrapped which it won't. The RAF and RN would not get SHs.

The incredibly small investment of under $1m in an EMCAT study and recent F-35 media rhetoric should be analysed objectively. On the flip side, the F-35B has already completed supersonic flight and STOVL ops. Even Italy has scrapped the typhoon tranche 3B in favour of keeping the F-35 commitment.

None of the critical systems are an issue.
DailyTech - Subsystem Component Failures Blamed for F-35B STOVL Test Delays

 

[StevoJH]

Type 22 is larger than the 42 so I would expect it to be able to cope with the directors and the size of the dart magazine plus handling gear but as I say never been on one so unsure re internal layout but I would have expected forward and aft deep magazines so you would use the forward one for dart and I did suggest the batch three hull which has additional space.

Look at the launchers. They are not reloaded automatically from a magazine. To install a Sea Dart mount you would need a magazine directly below the launcher, there is no evidence that the magazine is located there in the T22.

Regarding the directors, even if it can handle the weight, where do you plan on putting them? There are also space constraints.

 

[kev 99]

Unsubstantiated rumours abound (Times UK) that due to ongoing problems with the F35B (reliability), escalating costs and potential delays in operational acceptance now means Super Hornets are back in the frame as a serious alternative. Possible reasons:

RAF personnel are already evaluating and flying the aircraft in the US;

EMCAT development is coming along nicely and is now a genuine alternative to steam;

Super Hornet is available now, Pilots can be fast-tracted through training once the Tornado sqn's are scrapped (imminent);

Cheaper option and less risk than F35B in a climate where cost overruns are no longer tolerable. The Trident replacement factor means the UK can no longer afford to take risks on an airframe, which could spiral out of control financially;

Will allow GR9's to be retired earlier than planned, and

SH sqn's can be rolled out at the same time as the first QE avoiding embarrassing scenes of an empty flat-top.

Looks like more leaks from 'informed sources' regarding what they want to happen, not what will.

 

[WillS]

Having served on both Polaris and Trident SSBN’s I would not be overly confident that the Vanguards could be SLEP’d, I always felt that the Polaris were the better built boats just an opinion on how they felt to me (something akin to being on Hermes and then Invincible)not a comment on the viability or otherwise.

That's surprising, and a little depressing. I hope you don't mind if I hope you're wrong?

I would have thought/hoped that the Vanguards, having been built with the experience of a generation of SSBNs behind them, would be the better built boat. Then again, govt purchasing....

Placing nukes on a vessel that shares a signature with an SSN risks blurring the line what if a country who is perhaps a little paranoid like say NK detects a conventional Astute thinks trident first strike Astute and decides to launch its missiles? Nuclear deterrence needs to be separate from defence it prevents ----ups.

I disagree. The whole point of CASD is that a potential foe must assume that the missiles are always ready to launch, detecting the boat (God forbid) would merely confirm that assumption.

Now, if we decided to employ some of those missiles in the global (conventional) strike role, that *would* cause confusion as a potential foe wouldn't know if any detected launch was conventional or nuclear.

WillS

 

[Hambo]

Look at the launchers. They are not reloaded automatically from a magazine. To install a Sea Dart mount you would need a magazine directly below the launcher, there is no evidence that the magazine is located there in the T22.

Regarding the directors, even if it can handle the weight, where do you plan on putting them? There are also space constraints.

I think you are right, I cant recall if it was on a forum or out of Rebuilding the Royal Navy but the T22 has a considerably different hull form to the T42, as the T42 has to accomodate this big box of a magazine below deck with all the mechanical gear to get the missiles to the launcher. It needs to store 5m long missiles vertically, have access to resupplythe magazine at sea and all the other kit that would go with it. The magazine must be low down in the hull as I read that when HMS Nottingham hit that rock off Australia , the Sea Dart magazine flooded causing all sorts of problems.

In contrast the T22 hull seems more slender in form forward, they looked at adding a 4.5 gun foward post Falklands on the B1 and B2 but the cost and complexity was supposedly astronomical, it was cheaper to design a new batch. Even the B3 seems to have emerged from recent refits with significant strenthening forwards so I suspect you couldnt do much with the forward end such as adding a massivey heavy magazine and launch rails.

Maybe we could have adapted the T22 as the Dutch did with their Kortenaar class, the Jacob something (?) class saw the hangar removed and a standard launcher added, they are very simlar in size to the T22 so if the RN did need more air defence vessels in a hurry, the B1 and B2 T22 could have been moded, at great expense. It would have left a ship with exocet, sea wolf and one 911 director at the front end, a single 909 and Sea Dart at the rear and they would need to squeeze in an air search radar. The exocet could have been swapped for Harpoon in due course, maybe a phalanx in the wet position on front of sea wolf, but the loss of the helo would have been a big restriction on the utility of such a ship. But with plenty of T42s never really worth it, although it was a waste of decent ships to retire them early or sink them as targets.

 

[Palnatoke]

I agree with you, but it is difficult to do deals with countries which have similar industrial capability.

Rather the opposite.

India is a growing market, will be a massive power in 20 years its important to build relationships early (we are already late). US has shot themselves in the foot by their childish addiction to sanctions.

Let's not overestimate india. But yes, a growing market.

As an example if we wanted to develop a replacement MBT, Germany & France will not drop theirs and and the production run will not be huge with all of Europe, countries will still buy US. India will potentially have a bigger requirement and will have a positive impact on the design...preventing the UK over specing!! India also brings high quality and cheap IT development which will only increase as a % of content.

With a "Common european Defense Market" There won't a "We won't drop our Tank" Instead there will be open and fair competion and the best project to the money will get selected,
I belive the germans got that project for the moment and in the last 30 years.

Sweden tried very hard to build a Scandinavian defence zone, but Norway and Denmark were very luke warm

No, Denmark tried to build a scandinavien defense zone, but Norway, of very understandable reasons, needed something more substanciel. So did Denmark btw and Hedtofts ideas (father of the idea in the 50ties) were unrealistic, if not dangerous.

 

[1805]

Rather the opposite.



Let's not overestimate india. But yes, a growing market.






With a "Common european Defense Market" There won't a "We won't drop our Tank" Instead there will be open and fair competion and the best project to the money will get selected,
I belive the germans got that project for the moment and in the last 30 years.



No, Denmark tried to build a scandinavien defense zone, but Norway, of very understandable reasons, needed something more substanciel. So did Denmark btw and Hedtofts ideas (father of the idea in the 50ties) were unrealistic, if not dangerous.

I am all for European cooperation, but we live in a much bigger world than just the EU. India is probably one of the largest open defence markets, and offers the potential for long production runs and cheaper/high quality IT development.

I am not sure you would see a full EU wide open market for defence certainly in all areas. Some in particular are seen as strategic.

 

[overlander]

Unsubstantiated rumours abound (Times UK) that due to ongoing problems with the F35B (reliability), escalating costs and potential delays in operational acceptance now means Super Hornets are back in the frame as a serious alternative. Possible reasons:

RAF personnel are already evaluating and flying the aircraft in the US;

EMCAT development is coming along nicely and is now a genuine alternative to steam;

Super Hornet is available now, Pilots can be fast-tracted through training once the Tornado sqn's are scrapped (imminent);

Cheaper option and less risk than F35B in a climate where cost overruns are no longer tolerable. The Trident replacement factor means the UK can no longer afford to take risks on an airframe, which could spiral out of control financially;

Will allow GR9's to be retired earlier than planned, and

SH sqn's can be rolled out at the same time as the first QE avoiding embarrassing scenes of an empty flat-top.

All Tornados wll be scrapped ?? I mean F3 and GR4 ?? In my opinion the GR4 is a valuable asset in the attack role, if they scrap it it would leave the RAF only with 60 operational Typhoon + 70 Harriers GR 9 so I don,t think they will scrap the GR4 , it would be to scrap more than 200 fighters ??
Please somebody can explain it ?? I was thinking they will scrap only the ADV variant F3..

 

[PeterCrisp]

Would a nuclear equipped F-35 (with a cruise missile I suppose) based on the carriers be much cheaper than a fleet of subs? Obviously it's a tad more visible than a sub until the boffins can make a carrier somehow disappear but it still gives global coverage and reach.