The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

Swerve, if you read the second paragraph of the post you replied to and the start of the post I made previous you will see I am actually speculating on what could have been had the RN gone through with the sale of Invincible to Australia post Falklands and built a new carrier using lessons learnt from that conflict. I was talking mid 80s not late 70s, the Sea harrier and GR 3 were in service and had been combat proven at this point.

All very improbable but just a thought I had.

I thought at the time the decision was fairly mutual, the UK for political reasons could not go ahead and the Austrailian's were not really that keen on the idea?

I am not sure a larger carrier was needed for the RN, the Falkland's confirmed a number of things were needed, such as AEW & fighters with BVR missiles, which were sorted fairly quickly. The 3 CVHs could handle all the Sea Harriers we had?

A number of navies did go down the CVH route, but many more did not (RAN, RCN notable). I don't know why these didn't, even the smallest/extreme examples like the Chakri Naruebet/Giuseppe Garibaldi, if in a task group would see off most non carrier task groups. They are just so flexible/value for money, what else can go from: strike, air defence, assault & ASW?

 

[Volkodav]

I thought at the time the decision was fairly mutual, the UK for political reasons could not go ahead and the Austrailian's were not really that keen on the idea?

I am not sure a larger carrier was needed for the RN, the Falkland's confirmed a number of things were needed, such as AEW & fighters with BVR missiles, which were sorted fairly quickly. The 3 CVHs could handle all the Sea Harriers we had?

A number of navies did go down the CVH route, but many more did not (RAN, RCN notable). I don't know why these didn't, even the smallest/extreme examples like the Chakri Naruebet/Giuseppe Garibaldi, if in a task group would see off most non carrier task groups. They are just so flexible/value for money, what else can go from: strike, air defence, assault & ASW?

The Invincibles were modernised deleting Seadart to create more space for aircraft, the Joint Harrier force was formed to make it easier to surge RAF Harriers onto carriers in a strike role. The RN made do with the Invincible because that is what they had, if there had been a larger ship available they would have made do even better. The simple fact that the Queen Elizabeths are the size they are is an acknowledgement that the Invincibles were too small.

All I am doing is suggesting a viable way the RN could have got into larger ships based on experience sooner. It’s quite clear they could not afford to buy or man additional ships therefore the only way it could have happened is if the current ships were sold while still virtually new. Highly improbable except for the fact that it has happened, i.e. the offer of Invincible to Australian and more recently the sale of Largs Bay. The difference is this time it would have been to enable an increase in capability rather than a reduction for cost reasons.

 

[kev 99]

Apparently CEC has once again been kicked into the long grass under the last planning round.

 

[1805]

The Invincibles were modernised deleting Seadart to create more space for aircraft, the Joint Harrier force was formed to make it easier to surge RAF Harriers onto carriers in a strike role. The RN made do with the Invincible because that is what they had, if there had been a larger ship available they would have made do even better. The simple fact that the Queen Elizabeths are the size they are is an acknowledgement that the Invincibles were too small.

All I am doing is suggesting a viable way the RN could have got into larger ships based on experience sooner. It’s quite clear they could not afford to buy or man additional ships therefore the only way it could have happened is if the current ships were sold while still virtually new. Highly improbable except for the fact that it has happened, i.e. the offer of Invincible to Australian and more recently the sale of Largs Bay. The difference is this time it would have been to enable an increase in capability rather than a reduction for cost reasons.

The issue with the Falklands was the RN only had Invincible and Hermes (although agreed a bigger ship). Later all 3 invincibles were available and kept. I think if you have a relatively light aircraft like the Harrier, the Invincibles were more than adequate. The flexibility of 3 hulls v say 2 30,000t ships could not be underestimated if they were operating in their core ASW role, or even as a LPH or supporting the LPD.

 

[WillS]

Anyone have opinions on this concept note, published on the MOD website on 4th May on the "Future Black Swan Class Sloop of War"?

Joint Concept Note 1/12: Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System

A core crew of 8, supplemented by the mission specific crew that accompany the mission packages.

Interesting note in their about accommodation standards. There appears to be a feeling that with the Type 45 the RN has gone too far (e.g. submarine sized cabins for COs)

WillS

Will.

 

[1805]

Anyone have opinions on this concept note, published on the MOD website on 4th May on the "Future Black Swan Class Sloop of War"?

Joint Concept Note 1/12: Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System

A core crew of 8, supplemented by the mission specific crew that accompany the mission packages.

Interesting note in their about accommodation standards. There appears to be a feeling that with the Type 45 the RN has gone too far (e.g. submarine sized cabins for COs)

WillS

Will.

Interesting that the figure of £65m cost is based on 40 hulls. The need to land a Chinnok and hanger a Merlin looks to high end capability. I would think land a Merlin and hanger a Lynx would be more appropriate. It's time to develop a SF Merlin.

 

[ASSAIL]

This seems to be the RN's answer to the LCS minus the speed.
Certainly both concepts are evolved around systems rather than platforms.
Fixed costs for the USN LCS is now at $240m(minus systems) and Black Swan is approx USD 105.

It could be a contender for the RAN's OPV if carried to fruition.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The RN did NOT already have the aircraft, & RAF Harriers weren't deemed suitable (no radar): a new Harrier model was developed especially for the RN, with development not authorised until two years after HMS Invincible had been ordered.

This two year gap was not because the RN wasn’t authorised or interested in new VSTOL fighters when they ordered the Invincibles but because they were planning on acquiring a different aircraft. This was the “AV-16, Harrier II or Advanced Harrier” with the much bigger Pegasus 15 engine. It has a raised cockpit and the option of a radar. But in 1975 the US cancelled this project and the RN was forced to go it alone on a Sea Harrier.

The Invincibles were designed to operate helicopters for ASW originally: hence the Sea Dart. It was deleted after the Sea Harrier proved itself capable in fleet air defence. The first of class was modified while building to add a ski-jump for Harrier operations.

The Sea Dart was not because they wouldn’t have fighters and stems back to the RN’s concept of operation for the CVA-01 which was to have Sea Darts and 18 Phantoms. But from their concept of a highly dispersed surface ship task force to minimise damage from nuclear weapons and concentrated barrages of Soviet anti-ship missiles and (somewhat hopefully) to avoid having to maintain a CAP. By placing Sea Dart on the carrier they were able to have the carrier self-escort so more destroyers could be placed into picket positions. Sea Dart was only deleted after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet missile and nuclear threat.

The ships came first, then the decision to turn them into Harrier carriers (for self-defence only, originally, ASW remaining the main role), then the aircraft.

The RN always planned on having a VSTOL fighter on the Invincibles to provide a ‘Hack the Shad’ capability to shoot down snooping BEAR aircraft. Which is why the initial SHAR squadron was so small with only five aircraft and only 24 were ordered (to start with). A flight of four fighters and a spare for each ship and a training element.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

All I am doing is suggesting a viable way the RN could have got into larger ships based on experience sooner. It’s quite clear they could not afford to buy or man additional ships therefore the only way it could have happened is if the current ships were sold while still virtually new.

This could have very likely been the situation that happened except for the unplanned timing of the Argentine attack on the Falklands. Australia and the UK had cut the deal on the sale of the Invincible in February 1982 and Invincible was in port to prepare the start of the transfer process when the Argentines invaded. So the transfer was put on hold so she could fight in the war and afterwards meet the UK’s increased demand for ships. Because of the timing of the Falklands War the most important element of the transfer process had not been actioned – payment. If the invasion had gone in on the Argentineans schedule in and around New Year’s Day 1983 then Australia would have had made the first and major instalment of payment on Invincible (she would still be in UK hands) so she would have had to be transferred after the war.

What the RN would have done in this case is debatable. For all the rhetoric the Falklands War did not significantly change the Thatcher Government’s policy direction for the Royal Navy. The war put a hold on their plans to get rid of expeditionary capability all together so as to be exclusively focused on the Cold War ASW mission. But the level of expeditionary capability was not determined by what was needed but simply like for like replacement. If Invincible had become HMAS Australia after the Falklands then it is very likely that Thatcher would not fund a proper replacement but rather keep Hermes or just acquire something cheaper like two in place of one Ocean LPHs.

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose the prime example of what I am suggesting is something along the lines of what was done with the replacement HMS Sir Galahad. A significantly longer, beamier, larger displacement, more capable ship of similar design; there was a need to replace the war loss so the decission was made to improve the new ship. Look also at the Batch III Type 22s and Type 42s, both with greater length, superior performance and capability, the evolution of the Type 23 from little more than a towed array tug into a general purpose frigate.

 

[StevoJH]

Anyone have opinions on this concept note, published on the MOD website on 4th May on the "Future Black Swan Class Sloop of War"?

Joint Concept Note 1/12: Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System

A core crew of 8, supplemented by the mission specific crew that accompany the mission packages.

Interesting note in their about accommodation standards. There appears to be a feeling that with the Type 45 the RN has gone too far (e.g. submarine sized cabins for COs)

WillS

Will.

In general, I like it.

However, in some ways the 'core' capability is too high and in other to low. For example I think a higher speed of 25 knots would be more appropriate, even if it requires significantly more engine power. At 18 knots while it may be able to keep up with the expected rate of advance of the formation, it could not keep up with the expected 'operational' maximum speed of the QE class carriers, which would limit their utility as escorts during aircraft operations.

Like 1805 (shockingly I agree with him on something!!) i think that a Chinook sized helicopter platform might be overkill *unless* its just a side effect of other requirements rather than a requirement in itself (For example the space is required for fitting some of the modules in normal usage).

On the other hand, I don't believe the core self defense suite is sufficient. The main gun should be a 4.5" gun (or whatever replaces it in service) with stern and port/starboard defence provided by stabilised 25 or 30mm guns along the lines of the 'A' battery suggested in the document.

In general though, I like the concept.

An Initial order for 20-30 units would *not* break the budget (when compared to a T26 at an expected 400(?) Million/unit or a T45 at 600 million/unit (not counting R&D).

In general, i've been thinking that Navies have been going too far in their adoption of high end only platforms, even without modules equiped, these ships should be able to take care of most 'less then war' taskings whether it be anti-piracy patrols off the horn of africa, fisheries patrol off the coast of either the UK or Falklands or Anti-Drugs and fisheries protection patrols in the Carribean.

What they *don't* have, despite it being suggested as a possible usage, is the manpower for supporting disaster relief operations, even if they can carry the equipment.

The RN would be better off supplementing one of these Sloops with a Bay class carrying a company group primarily from the Royal Engineers with a security detachment from one of the Infantry battalions that can also provide additional peoplepower (are we allowed to say manpower anymore?).

 

[deepsixteen]

Hi

Completely agree the concept is exactly what we need built in small batches at a low rate production of around 2 per year for a life expectancy of say twenty years updating the design every four or five years based on operational experience.

Personally I think higher max speed and a BAE 110 57mm would make this suitable, start to build it now in a ship yard in the north east economic benefit plus useful warship win win.

Deepsixteen

 

[Systems Adict]

....Personally I think higher max speed and a BAE 110 57mm would make this suitable, start to build it now in a ship yard in the north east economic benefit plus useful warship win win....

...Silly Question....

But, WHICH shipyard in the North East ?

A&P Tyne is a Repair / refit yard (all quay wall berths IIRC).

Swan Hunter has been stripped of most of it's sale-able components, after being closed in 2006.


So where would you suggest ?


Rosyth ??? (It's in the NORTH East)

Harland & Wolf?? (If there's anything of it that hasn't been hived off for housing left?)

Cammel Lairds ?? (As it's either on the brink between being shut again, or being re-opened ??)

....I CERTAINLY wouldn't recommend Portsmouth, that's for sure !

SA

 

[deepsixteen]

...Silly Question....

But, WHICH shipyard in the North East ?

A&P Tyne is a Repair / refit yard (all quay wall berths IIRC).

Swan Hunter has been stripped of most of it's sale-able components, after being closed in 2006.


So where would you suggest ?


Rosyth ??? (It's in the NORTH East)

Harland & Wolf?? (If there's anything of it that hasn't been hived off for housing left?)

Cammel Lairds ?? (As it's either on the brink between being shut again, or being re-opened ??)

....I CERTAINLY wouldn't recommend Portsmouth, that's for sure !

SA

Hi

Anywhere on the Tyne or Tees new yard old yard not bothered it would make a change from throwing money at bankers, give a boost to something productive for a change. Even if it means paying for new infrastructure.

Why not Pompey?

Deepsixteen

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

However, in some ways the 'core' capability is too high and in other to low. For example I think a higher speed of 25 knots would be more appropriate, even if it requires significantly more engine power. At 18 knots while it may be able to keep up with the expected rate of advance of the formation, it could not keep up with the expected 'operational' maximum speed of the QE class carriers, which would limit their utility as escorts during aircraft operations.

Worse, if in some future conflict the class was tasked with the escort of civil/chartered/STUFT shipping, this class wouldn't even be able to keep up with modern cargo ships at their top speeds. 24kts is cruising, 18kts is dawdling.

Bulk/tankers are slower, of course. I think the average for the Panamax/Aframax classes is something like 13kts.
And a convoy (or task force) is only as fast as the slowest ship.

 

[StobieWan]

Some general comments on the Black Swan thing- the "Chinook with ramp down" requirement isn't gold plating, it's just a sensible requirement - any special forces insertion, disaster relief etc will roll around needing a helicopter of the right size, right payload and right range to be able to get aboard.

That basically means Chinook. It's not an expensive requirement to meet since you just need a slightly bigger deck, which in turn confers advantages on general operations - a lot of this ship hangs around getting TEU containers in and out of the bay and the more room to move 'em around, the better.

I disagree with the suggestion it should be carrying a medium calibre gun - for a ship this size and specification a rapid fire cannon can contribute to the air defence and CIWS roles if suitably specified, and a simple 30mm remotely operated mount can certainly do more good with less crew than a medium calibre gun. Most mounts of the cannon type are unmanned - stick a MCG on board and suddenly your crew jumps by 2-4 and your costs rack up a few hundred thou a year.

This thing won't carry anything more advanced than a search radar -so it'll never be put up as convoy escort in a hot war - if you want hot war capabilities, the price is going to treble as a minimum and suddenly you're looking at a Holland class price tag.

 

[StevoJH]

Accordingly to the report (which I read all of), they would have a 3d search radar as part of the core 'kit'.

Also, one of the proposed modules was for air defence.

As for a bigger gun, why push your destroyed in shore for Ngfs if you don't have to.

 

[KiwiRob]

...Silly Question....

But, WHICH shipyard in the North East ?


Cammel Lairds ?? (As it's either on the brink between being shut again, or being re-opened ??)

....I CERTAINLY wouldn't recommend Portsmouth, that's for sure !

SA

Having been to all the yards you mentioned I would have to go with Cammel Lairds.

 

[StobieWan]

Accordingly to the report (which I read all of), they would have a 3d search radar as part of the core 'kit'.

Also, one of the proposed modules was for air defence.

As for a bigger gun, why push your destroyed in shore for Ngfs if you don't have to.

Well, this is what I feel is scope creep - I'm all for padding out fleet numbers with cheaper vessels for operations other than war, but they're going to have to be cheap, and focussed on doing things that sending a frigate to do would be a waste.

My reasoning behind not fitting a medium calibre gun was explained earlier - if you stick a rapid fire cannon on the front, it's a very cheap and multi purpose way of adding some air defence, point defence and a good surface war capability - tied to a reasonable radar and you can persuade most third world air forces to stay at a distance, pick off an attack helicopter, that sort of thing. Not a core role but it's useful if the need arises suddenly.

Would you really want to put one of these inshore doing NGFS?

I did notice the range of module extended to air defence but I feel what happens there is that you start off with the idea you're buying something really cheap - and £65 is very attractive - and then pad the whole affair out to the point where you've spent £150m + on something that's slow, small, built to COTS and then plan to put in the firing line because it looks (on paper) as capable as a Corvette or a Frigate.


Build 'em, keep 'em cheap, rely on the aviation facilities and the modular stuff for mine hunting and so forth and you'd have a very nice replacement for the various range of ships we have to hand - basically HMPC as proposed.

 

[StobieWan]

Hmm...interesting, had another read through of the pre-amble and it looks like they're planning on treating these like plug and play solutions to a fair few war-like tasks.

I'm not convinced you can get that result out of a hull that cheap - and the speed thing would be a bind. I dunno, I suppose ASW has moved on a bit and it's more about the platforms you can launch than the hull. I shall peruse further..