I would be surprised if we get 13 i.e. one for one replacement of the Type 23.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I would prefer 10 T26s plus 3 extended batch 2 T45s...
I hope they build enough that at a modest production rate, a drum beat can be kept going until the replacement of the T45; say c4-5 per decade. Hopefully then something around a more war like ship based on the C3 concept could be build to maintain meaningful numbers.
I'd be surprised too !
Figures quoted have varied from 16 thru to 'between 8 - 12'.
Until the Govt gets its funding sorted, we'll be lucky to get any. T26 isn't a pipe dream, but it will be (I would say), between 3 - 5 years before we see an actual ship. After all, from what I've read in the press, I don't think there's been a formal design that's been agreed on yet....
SA
I fear we may be nearer 8 than 13. If this is the case, I think 8-12 C3 ships would be useful for maintaining a global footprint. 2-3,000t a hanger for a Wildcat, a modular design able to undertake a variety of missions.
I'm more confident about T26 numbers as I think they are more likely to trade on capability. This is why I think we should additionally be looking at a small T45 batch 2, so we have sufficient depth in AA escorts.
C3 will be the backbone of the Navy, similar to the destroyer forces in WW2. I agree a 2,000 tonne vessel capable of 40 kts with a decent endurance would-be great. Having a 76mm gun, plus CAMM and CIWS and torpedoes with Wildcat would be relatively cheap but potent combination.
kev 99
Member
There is not a hope of this happening in the near future and probably not at all. C3 has been decoupled from FSC for probably about 2 years now, it's officially part of the programme to replace the Mine counter measures ships that have all had their service lives extended, as such you might have a medium calibre gun if you're lucky, they won't have any sams other than manpads on board and certainly no torpedoes or CIWS.
I guess there could be a change of heart, if the RN was confronted with significant reduction in T26 numbers. After all this would be c5 years off anyway a lot could change.
I don't think we will see any Batch 2 Type 45, but actually I agree with you to a degree. If you look at the contrast in escort stratergy with the USN which has one heavy all rounder (the Burkes) and one (well 2 designs) light partol/ASW focused ship, to the orginal RN plan of AWD and 3 classes of escort its seems much more efficient.
It does seem to make sense to build bigger ships, which have: more volume to hold more VLS, better able to handle 2 big helicopters, can position sensors higher, and have space mission pods/flexidecks.
A 8-12,000t cruiser type ship (say 8-12), supported by a larger number of 2-3,000t ASW/patrol focused ships.
I don't believe such a ship would be that expense, but if we had to do without carrier strike aircraft, a cost effective way of delivering large numbers of cruise missiles? A cross between a King Sejong the Great class destroyer and an Absalon, the arrival of one or two such ships transforming most stituations.
Last edited:
First thing is first thing is first, a dislaimer to say that I am not a military man, just a fan as such.
I enjoy reading these forums and try and keep up to date with RN matters as at one time I was considering a career in the navy.
Disclaimer over.
I really struggle to understand where our navy planners are taking us considering the role of the navy, our budgets ( both pre and after the review) and achieving our goals.
Currently the main job of the RN seems to be anti drug, piracy patrols and keeping a global presence. The main purpose of the navy remains the protection of the realm and enforcing forign policy. The navy should be realistic and realize that the best way to achieve theses goals affectively is to divide the navy into 2 as far as planning is concerned.
As money is a huge issue currently for the navy I would be pushing to reduce opperating costs to free up money for later high end purchases. So naturally getting the suitable ships for our patrollling and presence commitments would be a top priority. I would suggest we purchased 12-16 patrol boats similar to the river class, but slightly larger to accommodate some marines and a helicopter hanger. I read that the river class patrol ship costs 30 million pounds so a ship of this size and specification should be in the region of 40-50 mil. Taking the high end figure and buying 16 ships you would end up with a total cost of 800 mil which is less than 1 t-45 or about 1.5’s times the planned cost of 1 new t-26 frigate.
As for the main fleet composition. We currently have the2 carriers being built, 6 T45’s being finished off and the 6 astutes + 1 TBO coming online as well as 13? Type 23’s which need replacing as far as combat ships are concerned. Our amphibious landing fleet is good for while with the 3 bays and 2 albions. We also need to replace our vanguards.
So with what direction should we go?
IMO we need 2 fleets which need to be ready to respond to conflicts, nuclear deterrent and potentially some stand alone vessels. The first is the carrier group and the second is the amphibious assault group.
Carrier group
1x’s QE class + 2x’s T-45 - 3x’s T-26( ASW) - 2x’s astute
Amphibious group
Available amphibious fleet + escort of 2x’s T-45 3x’s T-26 (ASW)- 2x’s astute.
Nuclear deterrent
3x’s vanguard replacement
To keep All the above numbers able to deploy we would need to have a total of 2x’s QE class 6x’s T-45 8x’s T-26 (ASW) 6x’s astute and 3x’s vanguard replacement. Meaning we would only have to purchase the 8 x’s T-26’s, and 3x’s vanguard replacement
Between the patrol boats and core fleets the navy would have what it needs to do its tasks well. Remaining money can be spent on potentially more astutes, T-26 (GP) frigates or even a dedicated LPH assuming both carriers are used to maintain readiness for the carrier group.
ok rant over and ill stop playing armchair admiral. I just hope that either the navy gets the fleet they want with increased government spending or they learn how to use their cash better..
I enjoy reading these forums and try and keep up to date with RN matters as at one time I was considering a career in the navy.
Disclaimer over.
I really struggle to understand where our navy planners are taking us considering the role of the navy, our budgets ( both pre and after the review) and achieving our goals.
Currently the main job of the RN seems to be anti drug, piracy patrols and keeping a global presence. The main purpose of the navy remains the protection of the realm and enforcing forign policy. The navy should be realistic and realize that the best way to achieve theses goals affectively is to divide the navy into 2 as far as planning is concerned.
As money is a huge issue currently for the navy I would be pushing to reduce opperating costs to free up money for later high end purchases. So naturally getting the suitable ships for our patrollling and presence commitments would be a top priority. I would suggest we purchased 12-16 patrol boats similar to the river class, but slightly larger to accommodate some marines and a helicopter hanger. I read that the river class patrol ship costs 30 million pounds so a ship of this size and specification should be in the region of 40-50 mil. Taking the high end figure and buying 16 ships you would end up with a total cost of 800 mil which is less than 1 t-45 or about 1.5’s times the planned cost of 1 new t-26 frigate.
As for the main fleet composition. We currently have the2 carriers being built, 6 T45’s being finished off and the 6 astutes + 1 TBO coming online as well as 13? Type 23’s which need replacing as far as combat ships are concerned. Our amphibious landing fleet is good for while with the 3 bays and 2 albions. We also need to replace our vanguards.
So with what direction should we go?
IMO we need 2 fleets which need to be ready to respond to conflicts, nuclear deterrent and potentially some stand alone vessels. The first is the carrier group and the second is the amphibious assault group.
Carrier group
1x’s QE class + 2x’s T-45 - 3x’s T-26( ASW) - 2x’s astute
Amphibious group
Available amphibious fleet + escort of 2x’s T-45 3x’s T-26 (ASW)- 2x’s astute.
Nuclear deterrent
3x’s vanguard replacement
To keep All the above numbers able to deploy we would need to have a total of 2x’s QE class 6x’s T-45 8x’s T-26 (ASW) 6x’s astute and 3x’s vanguard replacement. Meaning we would only have to purchase the 8 x’s T-26’s, and 3x’s vanguard replacement
Between the patrol boats and core fleets the navy would have what it needs to do its tasks well. Remaining money can be spent on potentially more astutes, T-26 (GP) frigates or even a dedicated LPH assuming both carriers are used to maintain readiness for the carrier group.
ok rant over and ill stop playing armchair admiral. I just hope that either the navy gets the fleet they want with increased government spending or they learn how to use their cash better..
Welsh1, I have a very similar background to you, and have equally struggled to understand the approach the RN is taking. You cannot blame politics and poor financial management for everything. The SDSR just showed a complete lack of strategy.
Everyone tends to frown on fantasy fleets as think that it is just amateurs playing games. But, what they do help with is explain thought on the balance of the fleet, which in my view is completely out of kilter.
I think that the days of a separate ARG / carrier strike groups are long gone. As such the we should end up with two groups (one active and in reserve), being sized up and down as required. Each group would consist of the following:
1 x CVF
1 x LPD
3 x T45
3 x T26 ASW
1 x SSGN
2 x Fleet tankers / AORs
This would be our big stick in the world.
Additionally, I would have a T26 ASW on station as APT(N) - requiring three vessels in total to be rotated.
'Global presence' would formed into 6 'squadrons', 3 active at each time, each consisting:
1 x JSS (capable of carrying a RM company)
2 x C3
3 of the squadrons would have an extended T45 (better ASW, Harpoon plus TLAM). Also on top of this would be the 7 astutes and a further 4 SSGNs for nuclear deterrence.
In addition to this I would have a costal command which would be responsible for the defence of the UK and all dependecies, including Gibraltar, Falklands and Caribbean:
12 x C3
1 x Ice patrol
3 x JSS
18 x Inshore Patrol
MCMV and survey capabilities would be modularised, and capable of being deployed on a C3 or anything larger, including the JSS.
This would give a balanced fleet, in terms of number of vessels its very close to the SDSR. It explains why I think the C3 should be more than just a new River Class and why the T26 should be basically a like for like replacement for the T23 (without the TLAM and other bells and whistles). This would leave the requirement for more AA support, hence a beefed up second T45 batch.
Everyone tends to frown on fantasy fleets as think that it is just amateurs playing games. But, what they do help with is explain thought on the balance of the fleet, which in my view is completely out of kilter.
I think that the days of a separate ARG / carrier strike groups are long gone. As such the we should end up with two groups (one active and in reserve), being sized up and down as required. Each group would consist of the following:
1 x CVF
1 x LPD
3 x T45
3 x T26 ASW
1 x SSGN
2 x Fleet tankers / AORs
This would be our big stick in the world.
Additionally, I would have a T26 ASW on station as APT(N) - requiring three vessels in total to be rotated.
'Global presence' would formed into 6 'squadrons', 3 active at each time, each consisting:
1 x JSS (capable of carrying a RM company)
2 x C3
3 of the squadrons would have an extended T45 (better ASW, Harpoon plus TLAM). Also on top of this would be the 7 astutes and a further 4 SSGNs for nuclear deterrence.
In addition to this I would have a costal command which would be responsible for the defence of the UK and all dependecies, including Gibraltar, Falklands and Caribbean:
12 x C3
1 x Ice patrol
3 x JSS
18 x Inshore Patrol
MCMV and survey capabilities would be modularised, and capable of being deployed on a C3 or anything larger, including the JSS.
This would give a balanced fleet, in terms of number of vessels its very close to the SDSR. It explains why I think the C3 should be more than just a new River Class and why the T26 should be basically a like for like replacement for the T23 (without the TLAM and other bells and whistles). This would leave the requirement for more AA support, hence a beefed up second T45 batch.
I agree you need a single active ARG/CBG and a patrol force. But the ships should be far more multi role, if we had to do a "Falklands" i.e. independent intervention we should be able to re-equip and send 10-12 of the patrol frigates with TAS, so they can screen the ARG/CBG.
The specification of this ship is key: 2,500t 25 knots, 8,000m range, 1 x 57mm canon, and CAMM. plus a hanger & Wildcat. Fully modular to do MCM etc.
But even the other ships the RN is so conservative in is approach, ships have limited flexibility and dated design concepts. Why shouldn't the LPD have a hanger capability and be a multi role dock, having patrol craft like the CB90h or even larger craft at 30-150t (armed with a verion of Brimstone, 30mm canon able to avoid another HMS Cornwall incident) capable of semi independent missions 2-3+ days away from the LPD.
As we reduce the number of hulls why not fit a T45 PAAMS system to a 18,000t LPD it will be able to carry the sensors far higher than a T45. BTW this would all be in the future....there is no money now and retro fitting would be expensive and wasteful.
Additonal alot of high profile interventions recently have been relief operations or evacuations of our nationals. A T45 with Absalon flexideck 2 x Merlin and a multi role LPD would be ideal for these.
Hmmm... "...all this would be in the future...." ?
The RFA Fort Victoria class ships combine the functions of a fleet support tanker and a stores support ship. - Image - RFA Fort Victoria Class Fleet Replenishment Ships
RFA Fort Victoria Class Fleet Replenishment Ships - Naval Technology
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Victoria_class_replenishment_oiler"]Fort Victoria class replenishment oiler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
The top link is an aerial picture of the AOR / RFA Fort Victoria. In the middle of the ship, between the x4 RAS masts, is a space for a Seawolf missile silo.
THIS ship was originally designed to have x2 trackers & 996 Radar fitted, so that she could be "all things to all men". This would have allowed her to go into areas closer to shore & have the ability to defend herself.
...So, it's not so much for the future, but is actually something similar to what we have done in the past.
...& after the infamous SDSR last year, she'll be no-more, as she's currently being 'stripped of stores', to be decommissioned.
SA
I think our two LPDs will be replaced by LDHs eventually. Apart from these and the Point Ro-Ros, I think we should invest in JSSs as they will give the most flexibility.
I understand your comment wanting to maximize flexibility in each platform, but that is my point. Assuming the carrier group would never leave port without less than 4 escorts (2 x T45, 2 x T26), then assuming the standard 1 active to 3 total that takes up 12 of the fleet - is there a real need for flexi-decks etc for these? In my view no. Also, without MPA in sight we need a full time ASW frigate in the north Atlantic, that's another 3 needed without the need for bells and whistles.
That leaves my 3 extended T45, the C3s and the JSSs which is where the flexibility should be. So I think we partly agree here.
I understand your comment wanting to maximize flexibility in each platform, but that is my point. Assuming the carrier group would never leave port without less than 4 escorts (2 x T45, 2 x T26), then assuming the standard 1 active to 3 total that takes up 12 of the fleet - is there a real need for flexi-decks etc for these? In my view no. Also, without MPA in sight we need a full time ASW frigate in the north Atlantic, that's another 3 needed without the need for bells and whistles.
That leaves my 3 extended T45, the C3s and the JSSs which is where the flexibility should be. So I think we partly agree here.
I'm not sure this is quite what I was suggesting, I understood the large helicopter capability and potential for Sea Wolf was based on the original concept around the T23 which would be a relatively lightly armed ship without an embarked helicopter designed to just drag a TAS. I suspect they would have looked like the JMSDF Abukuma class destroyer escort.
I think with fewer hulls nearly all ships need to be able to operate independently which really requires an embarked helicopter.
I think you would be right about the RN eventually going for a LDH (about 30 years after everyone else) but the massive aircraft capacity of the CVF is such that I just can't see it being necessary to have a full through deck. A deck level hanger capable of carrying 4-6 Merlin. I like the idea of a number of small JSS maybe 50% larger than a Rover sized RFA.
Technical data - Modernization - Armada Española
The Spanish BAM - price is near enough £100m - and that's without any surface to air or a 3D radar, decent sonar etc. How much is your C3 going to cost? And where do you get the figure of 8,000 nm range ? That's a long range - most everything else in that size is barely 2/3 that range - often less.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_class_offshore_patrol_vessels"]Holland class offshore patrol vessels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HNLMS_Holland_P840.JPG" class="image" title="Future HNLMS Holland P840"><img alt="Future HNLMS Holland P840" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/HNLMS_Holland_P840.JPG/300px-HNLMS_Holland_P840.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e1/HNLMS_Holland_P840.JPG/300px-HNLMS_Holland_P840.JPG[/ame]
The Hollands are four for £460m ish - say, £120m each - good radar, but no surface to air yet.
If you put all the bits you want into C3, it'll be near enough £200m I suspect between CAMM and a supporting radar etc.
Ian
I don't think it would be necessary to fit all of them with CAMM a modular approach such as the Stanflex, with ships outside of UK waters fitted. Also the production line would be much longer c16-20 (if they replace MCM, OPVs & Survey ships plus some frigates). I think the RN ships need longer range as they have to work over longer distances with less RFAs?
TAS, CAMM, Phalanx maybe only sets for 8-10 ships?