The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Repulse]

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?

I think that you are right that those inside UK waters can be fitted for but not with TAS and CAMM. In my vision you would still probably want to have this on vessels patrolling the falklands, gibraltar and the Caribbean. I would see this as 16 fully configured, and 8 basic.

As I see these patrolling alongside a JSS for significant deployments, I think range to some extent can be sacrificed.

Also, I see these ships being operated in the same way as HMS Clyde with a high percentage of availability. Building one per year continuously means a 24 year lifespan.

 

[riksavage]

I think that you are right that those inside UK waters can be fitted for but not with TAS and CAMM. In my vision you would still probably want to have this on vessels patrolling the falklands, gibraltar and the Caribbean. I would see this as 16 fully configured, and 8 basic.

As I see these patrolling alongside a JSS for significant deployments, I think range to some extent can be sacrificed.

Also, I see these ships being operated in the same way as HMS Clyde with a high percentage of availability. Building one per year continuously means a 24 year lifespan.

BAE have just signed a new agreement (to 2018) to keep HMS Clyde up and running out in the Falklands removing any need for the vessel to return to the UK for maintenance. They claim a 99% availability rate by having a team permanently based on the Island. The same team would also be able to provide limited support to any visiting RN vessels on an ad-hoc basis.

This change of approach offering a total solution (rather than simply supplying parts/maintenance) which contractually guarantees platform availability appears to be a win, win situation for all. Allows for longer term planning by BAE avoiding boom/bust hiring cycles and maximizes operational hours at sea. With fewer hulls planned this has to be the way forward.

 

[1805]

According to press reports (Telegraph) Price Charles has agreed to have the second QE Class renamed Ark Royal. The Navy is keen to use the iconic name for at least one of its new capital ships wihout having to wait another 10-20 years for a possible LHP/D.

Interesting, I am not sure why Ark Royal is an iconic name; but agree it has become so, particularly for carriers. None of the ships have really had that active combat records or that long service. I wonder how much of it was the 1976 TV series playing out the demise of the RN's conventional carrier capability and the image of the end of the RN on the world stage.

I wouldn't be sorry to see the name PoW dropped..... Hermes, Dreadnought, Eagle, Invincible or Warspite?

 

[1805]

Also, I see these ships being operated in the same way as HMS Clyde with a high percentage of availability. Building one per year continuously means a 24 year lifespan.

Yes completely agree vital to have a continious flow of them supporting the ship building industry. It is a popular size for exports aswell. The RN needs to be far more careful around its PR, and could do with aligning itself with job creation.

 

[StevoJH]

I wouldn't be sorry to see the name PoW dropped..... Hermes, Dreadnought, Eagle, Invincible or Warspite?

Renaming at this stage would be a slight to anyone who served aboard the last Prince of Wales.

Especially since i'm fairly sure construction of the blocks has already begun.

 

[riksavage]

Interesting, I am not sure why Ark Royal is an iconic name; but agree it has become so, particularly for carriers. None of the ships have really had that active combat records or that long service. I wonder how much of it was the 1976 TV series playing out the demise of the RN's conventional carrier capability and the image of the end of the RN on the world stage.

I wouldn't be sorry to see the name PoW dropped..... Hermes, Dreadnought, Eagle, Invincible or Warspite?

Keep the PoW name for the first in class Vanguard replacement.

I think the Navy are keen to have the Ark Royal's name carried over for political and historical reasons, it's so well known even amongst the generally disinterested civvy pop. It might make selling it on even more embarrassing for the incumbent government once complete. Not the first time a ships name has been changed after being laid down, the last Ark Royel was built HMS Irresistible.

They could have gone for Hermes or Eagle as an alternative though.

 

[swerve]

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.

Holland class offshore patrol vessels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

BAM (2500 tons) endurance/range =

Autonomía combustible: 3500 millas a 15 nudos + 12 días a 6 nudos + 3500 a 12 nudos.

i.e. 7000 nautical miles at 12-15 knots, plus 12 days loitering at 6 knots. It can't do 25 knots, though.

HMS Clyde has a range of 7800 nautical miles at 12 knots, & is 1850 tons. But again, she can't do 25 knots. These ships are both in the 20-21 knots maximum speed range, with maximum sustained speed a little lower (19 knots for BAM).

The sterling price of BAM is a function of the exchange rate. At the rate when the first batch was ordered, they cost ca £65mn each (but were meant to cost £55mn), with design spread over 4 ships. At the current exchange rate, they're close to £90 mn each. The class of four Holland OPVs was ordered for €468 mn, i.e. €117mn each, or £104 mn at the current rate. I don't know what the final price is, but I suspect it'll be a bit more. That sensor mast must cost a fair bit more than the BAM sensors.

As you say, all without surface-air weapons, or much else that you'd want if your were going to fight anything tougher than pirates.

They both look capable ships in the environment they were designed for, & that isn't all-out war. A River beefed-up enough to take a hangar (i.e. a slightly stretched Clyde) would be the same.

 

[StevoJH]

Not the first time a ships name has been changed after being laid down, the last Ark Royel was built HMS Irresistible.

HMS Indomitable actually. And i'm not sure if she was renamed before or after construction began.

 

[1805]

Keep the PoW name for the first in class Vanguard replacement.

I think the Navy are keen to have the Ark Royal's name carried over for political and historical reasons, it's so well known even amongst the generally disinterested civvy pop. It might make selling it on even more embarrassing for the incumbent government once complete. Not the first time a ships name has been changed after being laid down, the last Ark Royel was built HMS Irresistible.

They could have gone for Hermes or Eagle as an alternative though.

You're right the RN should use everything in its powers to improve the chance of them both surviving and the name Ark Royal does seem to have a strange hold over the public...I have just always wondered why.

I think the T45 names were a lost opportunity; probably popular names in the RN but there are not the people they need to impress. For such sizable ships it would have been good to have given them historic capital ships names or a follow on major cities. London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham...etc.

 

[StevoJH]

Most of those names were already taken when the T45's were ordered, or the ships with those names had only just been retired.

Look up the names of (from memory) the T42's and the B2 T22's.

 

[1805]

Most of those names were already taken when the T45's were ordered, or the ships with those names had only just been retired.

Look up the names of (from memory) the T42's and the B2 T22's.

The T45 were directly replacing the T42 so it would not have been difficult to have managed. But they could have used other names that had some meaning if it had been an issue...Nelson, Trafalgar. The point is the names they selected do nothing but remind people who already know about naval matters of a class of indifferent post war destroyers.

 

[StobieWan]

As you say, all without surface-air weapons, or much else that you'd want if your were going to fight anything tougher than pirates.

They both look capable ships in the environment they were designed for, & that isn't all-out war. A River beefed-up enough to take a hangar (i.e. a slightly stretched Clyde) would be the same.

Yup - two things to come from all this, C3 is not destined to be T26-lite and if it was, it'd cost a fortune.

If we get something like BAM, we'll be doing fine - but all this talk of fitting it out with CAMM , Artisan etc is going to kill the class dead.

Ian

 

[StevoJH]

If the ships are large enough, they can always leave space and weight for them since that wouldn't cost anything. If they arent big enough though, well, then they arent big enough.

 

[kev 99]

Yup - two things to come from all this, C3 is not destined to be T26-lite and if it was, it'd cost a fortune.

If we get something like BAM, we'll be doing fine - but all this talk of fitting it out with CAMM , Artisan etc is going to kill the class dead.

Ian

Something the size of BAM will do just fine for the MHCP .class

 

[Hambo]

HMS Indomitable actually. And i'm not sure if she was renamed before or after construction began.

Ark Royal 4 was to be named HMS Irresistible.

Richard Johnstone-Bryden in his book on Ark Royal 4 says the change was in 1942 following one of the Warship Weeks around the country where the people of Leeds raised money spurred on by the sinking of Ark Royal 3 on 14th March. It does suggest the decision was made before construction had started though, as the keel was laid on 3rd May 1943.

A great book still sometimes to be found on amazon in paperback for a bargain.

 

[welsh1]

I tend to agree that for the C3 what’s needed is a rather basic ship with the potential for growth.

In its most basic form I would say light armaments , a helicopter hanger for if a helicopter is needed for its mission in hand and some space for some marines and some light craft for them to be deployed in it.

Currently I do not see what more than this we currently require, but having a design with space for growth will make it more attractive to foreign customers, as well as giving us the chance to adapt the ships to future requirements of the navy.

I fear pimping our patrol boats for missions they do not face will give us the usual problem of not enough hulls to do the job, another concern is the potential for spiraling costs. Going for a rather basic fit leaves little room for cost increases, which should help to get some confidence in the navy’s ability to acquire assets at the price they original quote the public which would be great for PR atm.

 

[StevoJH]

Ark Royal 4 was to be named HMS Irresistible.

Richard Johnstone-Bryden in his book on Ark Royal 4 says the change was in 1942 following one of the Warship Weeks around the country where the people of Leeds raised money spurred on by the sinking of Ark Royal 3 on 14th March. It does suggest the decision was made before construction had started though, as the keel was laid on 3rd May 1943.

A great book still sometimes to be found on amazon in paperback for a bargain.

She isnt the 'last' aka. latest, Ark Royal though.

The last Ark Royal was commissioned in 1985 and decommissioned in March 2011.

 

[Hambo]

She isnt the 'last' aka. latest, Ark Royal though.

The last Ark Royal was commissioned in 1985 and decommissioned in March 2011.

I know that, just pointing out changing a name prior to any construction isn't unusual. Though giving a small through deck cruiser that famous name wasn't a great choice in my opinion. In fact thinking about it, does anyone know why the change? I have read an account of the falklands when as the crisis unfolded and it was clear the argentines were going to invade, Maggie supposedly asked the 1SL when Ark Royal (4) could be redied. Clearly unaware she had been scrapped by then ? Which Woulc be quite remarkable if true. I wonder if there was a feeling that the fleet must have an Ark for PR purposes?

 

[1805]

I tend to agree that for the C3 what’s needed is a rather basic ship with the potential for growth.

In its most basic form I would say light armaments , a helicopter hanger for if a helicopter is needed for its mission in hand and some space for some marines and some light craft for them to be deployed in it.

Currently I do not see what more than this we currently require, but having a design with space for growth will make it more attractive to foreign customers, as well as giving us the chance to adapt the ships to future requirements of the navy.

I fear pimping our patrol boats for missions they do not face will give us the usual problem of not enough hulls to do the job, another concern is the potential for spiraling costs. Going for a rather basic fit leaves little room for cost increases, which should help to get some confidence in the navy’s ability to acquire assets at the price they original quote the public which would be great for PR atm.

Yes it would be great to see something delivered on time to price!! The thing is once you equip with a Wildcat you have the offensive capability of a modern RN frigate. Frigates may have bigger hangers but they rarely carry anything other than a Lynx.

As long as it is fitted for and not with CAMM/TAS the cost could be kept down, and lets face it that would bring them into line with most other RN ships that seemed to be fitted for but not with.

 

[swerve]

The T45 were directly replacing the T42 so it would not have been difficult to have managed. But they could have used other names that had some meaning if it had been an issue...Nelson, Trafalgar. The point is the names they selected do nothing but remind people who already know about naval matters of a class of indifferent post war destroyers.

HMS Trafalgar was retired on 4th December 2009. HMS Nelson is used for the Portsmouth naval base.

All the Type 45 names have long traditions. I think one is the 12th RN ship of that name - and Duncan was the victor of the Battle of Camperdown, which was of tremendous importance. Without it, there might have been no Trafalgar. Duncan used the unorthodox tactic later copied by Nelson at Trafalgar, of breaking the enemy line. I reckon he deserves a ship.