The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
From the RN website,
"After being fitted to the 13 Type 23s in service (the oldest, Argyll, will serve until around 2023, the youngest, St Albans, until 2036), Sea Ceptor will be installed on the Type 26s, replacement for the 23s, which begin to join the Fleet at the beginning of the next decade."

I would think Argyle must be one of the first, as 2016-2023 only gives 7 years max, hardly worth doing for less time in service?
If you were chucking it all in the bin in seven years, I'd say yes, but if you're pulling through the radar, missile system, TAS into a type 26 then you're actually getting pretty good value for money there. I'm just confused as Argyll isn't long out of a refit (seawolf updates, 30 mm guns etc) so presumably she'll be back in sometime before 2016 to get FLAADS fitted?

I'm trying to work out how they're going to get 13 ships through that routine once SeaCeptor (I hate that bloody name) goes live, which is scarily close to the day Seawolf expires and starts to stink up the place.
 

Hambo

New Member
If you were chucking it all in the bin in seven years, I'd say yes, but if you're pulling through the radar, missile system, TAS into a type 26 then you're actually getting pretty good value for money there. I'm just confused as Argyll isn't long out of a refit (seawolf updates, 30 mm guns etc) so presumably she'll be back in sometime before 2016 to get FLAADS fitted?

I'm trying to work out how they're going to get 13 ships through that routine once SeaCeptor (I hate that bloody name) goes live, which is scarily close to the day Seawolf expires and starts to stink up the place.
Possibly because there is nothing really new about Sea Ceptor and its components seem to have the touch of plug and play about it? It utilises bits of existing kit with some tweaks. Based on ASRAAM technology, seeker derived from the one used in MICA, existing uplink technology and proximity fuse. Its simplified by soft launch, but uses well tried and tested MDBA pitch and control mechanisms. It is cued by a new radar that has been designed to plumb straight into the Type 23 combat management system with just a few software tweaks and as I understand it the system uses a set of predictive algorithms to cope with fast agile targets, a ship will carry more missiles than sea wolf, and each missile is cheaper so copes with course changing incomers by firing two? In simple terms, an incoming missile can go straight, or jink left or right, so pop off two missiles slightly offset and there is a good chance the active seeker will find it, with a good probability the agile missile body can catch it. (explained to me by a mate in the navy, I'm not good with the details)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the recently upgraded ships have already received the initial Sea Ceptor requirements and the actual swap over will be quite simple, rip out the sea wolf tubes, drop in the 48 cold launch cells, remove the trackers and add artisan, the power requirements, cabling and software should all be the same generation. It should be quite a clever solution if they can pull it off.

Latest I can find is that all T23 should get Artisan by 2015.
 

1805

New Member
Possibly because there is nothing really new about Sea Ceptor and its components seem to have the touch of plug and play about it? It utilises bits of existing kit with some tweaks. Based on ASRAAM technology, seeker derived from the one used in MICA, existing uplink technology and proximity fuse. Its simplified by soft launch, but uses well tried and tested MDBA pitch and control mechanisms. It is cued by a new radar that has been designed to plumb straight into the Type 23 combat management system with just a few software tweaks and as I understand it the system uses a set of predictive algorithms to cope with fast agile targets, a ship will carry more missiles than sea wolf, and each missile is cheaper so copes with course changing incomers by firing two? In simple terms, an incoming missile can go straight, or jink left or right, so pop off two missiles slightly offset and there is a good chance the active seeker will find it, with a good probability the agile missile body can catch it. (explained to me by a mate in the navy, I'm not good with the details)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the recently upgraded ships have already received the initial Sea Ceptor requirements and the actual swap over will be quite simple, rip out the sea wolf tubes, drop in the 48 cold launch cells, remove the trackers and add artisan, the power requirements, cabling and software should all be the same generation. It should be quite a clever solution if they can pull it off.

Latest I can find is that all T23 should get Artisan by 2015.
Wiki quotes the first Type 23 as getting Artisan 2012-13 (Iron Duke)
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wiki quotes the first Type 23 as getting Artisan 2012-13 (Iron Duke)
I believe ID is the trials ship for Artisan and CAMM (I'm going back to CAMM, can't be @rsed typing that stupid name any more!)

If the rest of the Type 23 fleet are being sorted out right after that, it'll be a hectic schedule.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Possibly because there is nothing really new about Sea Ceptor and its components seem to have the touch of plug and play about it? It utilises bits of existing kit with some tweaks. Based on ASRAAM technology, seeker derived from the one used in MICA, existing uplink technology and proximity fuse. Its simplified by soft launch, but uses well tried and tested MDBA pitch and control mechanisms. It is cued by a new radar that has been designed to plumb straight into the Type 23 combat management system with just a few software tweaks and as I understand it the system uses a set of predictive algorithms to cope with fast agile targets, a ship will carry more missiles than sea wolf, and each missile is cheaper so copes with course changing incomers by firing two? In simple terms, an incoming missile can go straight, or jink left or right, so pop off two missiles slightly offset and there is a good chance the active seeker will find it, with a good probability the agile missile body can catch it. (explained to me by a mate in the navy, I'm not good with the details)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the recently upgraded ships have already received the initial Sea Ceptor requirements and the actual swap over will be quite simple, rip out the sea wolf tubes, drop in the 48 cold launch cells, remove the trackers and add artisan, the power requirements, cabling and software should all be the same generation. It should be quite a clever solution if they can pull it off.

Latest I can find is that all T23 should get Artisan by 2015.
Oh, I think CAMM is already tolerably mature as a missile - large chunks of the technology are being brought in from other systems.

We'll see - I like the idea of upgrading the existing ships then re-using the stuff, seems one of the more cost effective things the RN has come up with. They won't have the reach of something carrying ESSM but overall, looks like a sensible update.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Oh, I think CAMM is already tolerably mature as a missile - large chunks of the technology are being brought in from other systems.

We'll see - I like the idea of upgrading the existing ships then re-using the stuff, seems one of the more cost effective things the RN has come up with. They won't have the reach of something carrying ESSM but overall, looks like a sensible update.
Me too, i'd rather T23 be upgraded and we get a bit of operational experience (whilst it's still relatively mature, it's still a good thing go have IMO) with CAMM and the gubbins then be re-used for T26 than leave them alone + install them "fresh" on the T26.

Compared to Sea Wolf, it's a very good performance enhancer for the RN in my eyes (at least, thats how i remember it, i'll edit this if needs be at a later date as i'm off to lectures)
 
Do we know when the first carrier will finally start to look like the full on finished article? I know it's due to be completed in 2016 but will all the blocks be fit together and looking structurally complete much before that or are all the blocks complete and it's just a matter of fitting it all together in the last couple of months?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Do we know when the first carrier will finally start to look like the full on finished article? I know it's due to be completed in 2016 but will all the blocks be fit together and looking structurally complete much before that or are all the blocks complete and it's just a matter of fitting it all together in the last couple of months?
The figure i had rattling around my noggin is that HMS Queen Elizabeth will hopefully get her hull in the water in 2014

Although now looking at the ACA timeline, it seems like under the 2015 section "Intergration work nearing completion" and it shows a nearly fully constructed graphical representation of HMS QE in dry-dock.

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/en/the-ships/timeline.aspx

I expect she'll be roughly looking like a ship early/mid 2014 but thats just a guess. I'll be interested to hear more informed opinions however.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
For the past several weeks momentum was swinging toward the UK switching back to the F-35 STOVL jet propelled by soaring estimates to convert the CVFs with CATOBAR kit. Now it seems the USN has advised London that the conversion expense should be around half of the latest estimates. Apparently, Washington seems to favor the F-35C for the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.htmlg
To me, this is important on 2 levels.

1) That now it's blatantly obvious (not that it wasn't before, mind.) that the MoD had got their figures wrong, and its good to see Cameron ordering a "Treasury-led re-examination of the project" but not so good it took the assistant SecNav to get the figures looked at.

2) Since when has the US cared about what platform their allies go for? A sale is a sale right?

While I was reading the article I was thinking "Hmm, looks like the US really do seem to value interoperability with the Royal Navy" then I came across this piece

Two British carriers are being built, but one will be mothballed following the SDSR. Reverting to jump jets for both of them would not help American military planners, who want to be able to base a squadron of their own jets on a British carrier.

Separate accommodation is being built on board HMS Prince of Wales with communications facilities that would be for “US Eyes Only”.
OK, basing a squadron on a RN carrier thats fine, thats the point of interoperability I guess, but the bit that really got up my nose was the last part, "US eyes only"?! Would the USN allow a section of a future Ford class carrier to be "British eyes only"? I doubt it.
 

Troothsayer

New Member
I've absolutely no doubt the US would love the UK to have CATOBAR carriers and that should USN planes operate occassionally from RN carriers they will bring US personnel on board. 'For US eyes only' is mere journo BS however.
 
Surely if they did end up having special rooms with US equipment we'd get them to pay for it and maybe add a few of those infamous $500 hammers that used to get a lot of attention. I'm wondering how much we could legitimately screw them before they start noticing?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
It seems to me all that U-turn from the F-35C to the F-35B is a jurno BS...
BTW any news around HMS Ambush? :(
It looks like it, all bouncing around the £1.8bn figure quoted.

Looking at the RN website all i can see is "She will sail for her home port of Faslane in 2012", there's no commission date on her profile so if she actually sails in 2012 it'll be much later in the year or potentially early 2013.

The latest news article published about HMS Ambush is about her maiden dive on Oct 5th 2011, nothing more at the moment.
 

htbrst

Active Member
Anyone got any new info about the talks last year about renaming HMS Prince of Wales with HMS Ark Royal?

Prince Charles 'saves Ark Royal’ - Telegraph
No news, but I love the quote "A senior Navy officer said it was virtually unheard of to change the name of a ship that was already being built."

Pretty sure that's happened a few times for previous Ark Royals

- HMS Ark -> Ark Raleigh -> Ark Royal (the original)
- HMS Irresistable -> HMS Ark Royal (R09; Audacious-class)
- HMS Indomitable -> HMS Ark Royal (R07; Invincible-class)
 

Seaforth

New Member
The possibility of reversing the decision to move to cats and traps isn't going away, it's just been delayed.. this article came out after the articles about the US querying the cost of conversion
New delay over fighter jet choice - Telegraph

"A Whitehall source said: "There will be short-term pain for the Government, but in the long run it is by far the best option. Adapting the carriers is skewing the defence budget out of shape." "
 

Neutral Zone

New Member
Fairly upbeat commentary on the carrier construction program today on the very relevant pinstriped line blog:




Thin Pinstriped Line
Good article, it does emphasis that the actual CVF's themselves are being built on budget and from what the article says, are slightly ahead of schedule. The problems with the project stem entirely from the F-35's issues and with the associated political bungling.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's a good blog, often cogent, frequently insightful and I think it's important, as you say, to distinguish between all the buggering around politically and the output from the yards, which appears to be quite good.
 
Top