The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

The RN does face a capability gap without carriers, but that gap is narrowing and maybe be smaller than stated. The press release is vague on commitments, but it's sensible to do that with the UK media. I agree the threat to the carriers has passed, Hammond understands them and the pressure on the budget seems to have been addressed. What I do like is the contingency built in and the acknowledgement that cost overruns could happen, this approach will help to reduce them.

I struggle to think of a navy (other than the USN) that could match the RN, even without carriers. Some have greater numbers of older ships, but efficiency/training/fighting spirit?

 

[RobWilliams]

Thanks for the feedback.

I admit, I got a little excited at the thought of another 6 Type 45s. Obviously this is not to be.

In saying that, my Dad being an ex-Navy man, says the latest warships are so much more capable than what they are replacing - just one highly capable ship can cause the enemy to have heart palpitations . He was referring to the havoc created by the German pocket battleships during WWll.

I don't know whether we can compare a Daring class destroyer with a WWll German pocket battleship, but maybe 6 is enough. The mere inclusion of one of these destroyers in any Royal Navy task force should be of concern to any future opponent.

I think it was first referenced in a NAO document, but supposedly a single Type 45 can track, engage and destroy more targets than 5 Type 42's operating together.

That perhaps might be a more accurate representation of exactly how much ships like the Type 45 are a huge step up for the RN, the biggest regret is not getting more of them completely kitted out, but c'est la vie.

 

[RobWilliams]

The RN does face a capability gap without carriers, but that gap is narrowing and maybe be smaller than stated. The press release is vague on commitments, but it's sensible to do that with the UK media. I agree the threat to the carriers has passed, Hammond understands them and the pressure on the budget seems to have been addressed. What I do like is the contingency built in and the acknowledgement that cost overruns could happen, this approach will help to reduce them.

I struggle to think of a navy (other than the USN) that could match the RN, even without carriers. Some have greater numbers of older ships, but efficiency/training/fighting spirit?

100% with you on the contingency thing, previously the MOD has spent every penny in it's budget so when cost overruns occur it's a massive kick in the gentlemans area having to go cap in hand to the Treasury. However there were reports a while back that the Treasury may be seeking to claw back the majority of the unspent cash, hopefully this doesn't happen otherwise the people at the top may think it's a "use it or lose it" situation with their budget. That £8bn over a decade setup we've got now is brilliant, just hope to God Murphy doesn't screw it up if Labour get back in.

I'm rather fond of the French Navy & what they have to offer, the most problematic part of it being they've only got a single nuclear powered carrier. I often drool over their 3 Mistral LHDs, in the future the Barracuda class SSNs are going to be something special to them. They're going to be cruise missile capable whereas the current Rubis class isn't.

 

[1805]

100% with you on the contingency thing, previously the MOD has spent every penny in it's budget so when cost overruns occur it's a massive kick in the gentlemans area having to go cap in hand to the Treasury. However there were reports a while back that the Treasury may be seeking to claw back the majority of the unspent cash, hopefully this doesn't happen otherwise the people at the top may think it's a "use it or lose it" situation with their budget. That £8bn over a decade setup we've got now is brilliant, just hope to God Murphy doesn't screw it up if Labour get back in.

I'm rather fond of the French Navy & what they have to offer, the most problematic part of it being they've only got a single nuclear powered carrier. I often drool over their 3 Mistral LHDs, in the future the Barracuda class SSNs are going to be something special to them. They're going to be cruise missile capable whereas the current Rubis class isn't.

My hope is that the more realistic approach to budgeting/planning, will have a huge impact on the waste, which will allow capablity to the rebuilt (6-8 MPA in particular), even if the treasury need to cut a bit more.

I don't think Labour would screw it up as such, but what is clear to be a good defence minister you need to be able to stand up to: Treasury, BAE and the defence chiefs....I think it is vitial you have some basic knowledge of defence matters to be able to challenge/defend.

 

[Bonza]

I take your general point about the spurious nature of such comparisons but we couldn't fight the Falklands with today's fleet as we have no aircraft carriers.

You could absolutely fight the Falklands round 2 without aircraft carriers. The RN is in possession of submarine launched cruise missiles that could devastate Argentina's capacity to conduct air operations from the mainland, and even if they did manage to get a meaningful amount of aircraft up, it'd be the same 1982-vintage Mirages, Etendards and Skyhawks flying into the teeth of a substantially enhanced surface AAW capability. In addition and as you noted, there are already four Typhoons based at the Falklands and I've little doubt that more would be ferried there in short order if for some reason a serious air threat on the part of Argentina was perceived.

The Argentine air force would get torn to pieces. The details would differ but if anything they'd probably get it worse than they did in 1982.

This is assuming you're just talking about the air threat, anyway. I understand it wasn't your main point but there seems to be a common undercurrent in these discussions that because aircraft carriers played a critical role in the first Falklands War, it would be impossible to repeat such a conflict without them, which in my opinion simply isn't true (particularly when you look at the state of Argentina's military). There are other ways to make the Falklands inaccessible to hostile aircraft.

 

[RobWilliams]

Interesting article in Feb's Warships IFR about the Royal Navy in the context of the strategic aims of the UK in the future.

It draws heavily on General Richard's speech at RUSI a while back, should note that he's an avid supporter of the CVF & believes that the RN escort fleet needs to be expanded & he's Army.

Anyway, it talks about the RN in the Middle East, as we all pretty much expected with the US pivot to Asia the RN (and the MN probably) would need to rebalance the gap with their carriers & how - considering a QEC will spend a fair bit of time in that area most probably - that the escorting Type 45s should be given BMD capability.

A future UK RFTG with a QEC, 1 x Type 45, 1 x Type 26 (or 2), 1 x LPD, 1 x LSD, 1 x RoRo & 1 x SSN + 1 x tanker, that's a formidabel asset. Pair that in with a CdG battlegroup every now and then, not bad at all.

Nice bit of progress on HMS Queen Elizabeth, the last section of the bow (UB01 i think) got lifted a couple of days ago so now - from the front - she's starting to look more like an aircraft carrier. Slap an island on her (which is due in Rosyth on Tuesday i've heard - due to be lifted on in March) and she'll be looking the real deal.

According to the article she's currently 2/3 complete.

Giant leap forward for Queen Elizabeth as front of future carrier is completed | Royal Navy

EDIT: No word as of yet of these supposed Harpoons being fitted to some Type 45s

 

[RobWilliams]

Nice story from HMS Dauntless, she - very briefly - operated 3 Lynx helos, 2 deployed with her for training and a third was the squadrons CO checking in how they were doing

Dauntless makes history training future front-line Naval aviators | Royal Navy

Due to the space and aviation facilities afforded by the Navy’s state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyers, they are able to operate routinely with two embarked Lynx helicopters – Dauntless herself paved the way for this with trials two years ago – or just one of the much larger Merlin.

Two Lynx from 702 have embarked for the training; the third paid a flying visit as the squadron’s Commanding Officer, Cdr Anthony Rimington, landed to meet the students and see how they were progressing.

As a result Dauntless found herself in the unique position of operating three helicopters – underlining the flexibility and capability of new destroyers.

I'm glad that we're seeing more use of the capacity for 2 Lynx's, when that transitions over to the Wildcat & LMM + FASGW(H) that's going to be some mean capabilities right there.

I was looking into the Wildcat's munition load & if it's anything close to what the current graphics of it showing, we're onto a winner.

Currently, the naval Lynx can carry 4 x Sea Skua, graphics of the Wildcat show 8 FASGW(H) AND they show a grand total of 14 LMM, 7 per wing pylon.

Of course, the graphics can be BS, but i'm feeling positive about it.

 

[Bonza]

I would have thought FASGW-H would be limited to 4 weapons on a Lynx, isn't it expected to be the same size/weight as Sea Skua, only with better performance? Or at least that was my impression of the weight goals for the system, anyway. 14 LMM I could believe, though.

Still nothing to sneeze at, Sea Skua has done alright for itself and I'm sure FASGW-H, if it matches the performance goals I've seen in public, will be a very useful weapon to have aboard.

 

[RobWilliams]

AFAIK what the Wildcat does is it offers increased payload & range for a speed reduction.

Well, having a better look at the graphics there appears to be 2 layouts. One being like the regular HMA8 with 2 Sea Skua per side, but there are graphics of a setup which is 4 missiles in a square arrangement hanging from a pylon on either flank. Thinking back to an exchange I had with someone from AW in regards to the armament, a fair chunk of the exciting stuff (CRV7, 20mm cannon etc) was offered but there was no takers and it's just a concept.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it actually is 4 FASGW(H) total with the arrangement for 8 being a possible add-on if a customer requested it. Due to lack of funds, this is probably unlikely. Come to think of it, the images with 2 'Skua' per flank look more like the FASGW(H) graphics i've seen too.

Anyway, I've attached a selection of images of the Wildcat with armaments, those LMM pods look brilliant (there are alternative graphics with a 5-missile pylon which is the same as the 7 except missing the bottom 2). One even shows a particular pylon setup which would allow a FASGW(H) and a cluster of 7 pods per pylon, rather interesting.

Just what you need to deal with a FAC swarm, it's got a really light warhead apparently; just 3kg. Supposedly it's being a potential armament for future UK UAV's as it's something like 1.5m long and weighs around 13kg to strike ground targets & light/medium armour.

 

[kev 99]

I suspect the last photo shows the weapons cifiguration that the RN will be using, don't know what the middle one shows, they don't look like any of the representations of the FASGW(H) that I've seen, possibly Hellfires?

 

[RobWilliams]

If it is, that's very promising IMO. Would mean that chances are that if LMM was felt to be neccesary, she could carry 2 FASGW(H) as 'back up'.

Yeah, at a first glance I basically thought "4 big missiles => FASGW(H)", don't look like Hellfires either.

It doesn't look too dissimilar to Brimstone, it's got the 4 long fins at the back end, 4 fins at the head (although the graphic looks bigger) and the short stubby round nose at the head of the missile.

Possibly Brimstone 2? If you check out the triple Brimstone hanging on the rack and made the fins bigger it'd look very similar I reckon, although it'd be the first i've heard of about Brimstone 2 being on a Wildcat. Could be just a punt to demonstrate it to the Army? IIRC Brimstone 2 (or some derivation of) will be the ultimate replacement of Hellfire

 

[kev 99]

I would have thought if it was Brimstone they would be hanging off the tripple launcher they are currently using and not some new one. Also Brimstone is designed to be carried by Fast jets and is pretty expensive, I'd image it would be more cost effective to deploy something like Hellfire if there was a requirement for it.

Brimstone and Brimstone 2 look pretty much identical, or as near as.

It might just be the case that the middle graphic is an older version before the dimensions, weight etc of FASGW(H) were really known and therefore it was just a generic missile depicting a possible payload.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, but I just thought that considering a derivative of Brimstone is down to replace Hellfire that - if Hellfire was an option - that Brimstone 2 would be.

Chances are it is just an outdated image, but the configuration is rather interesting

 

[Bonza]

There's a maritime Brimstone variant in development called Sea Spear, so that's a possibility and would roughly match up with current typical payloads carried by helos. But then I guess it's still all in development. I'd personally think a larger FASGW-H variant (Sea Skua sized, that is) would be the more handy weapon given the performance enhancements they're going for.

Or they could just be generic CG weapon images for promotional purposes.

 

[RobWilliams]

The last time I heard about Sea Spear was in a dedicated launcher on FAC (and presumably available on larger ships), kinda looked like RAM if I remember rightly. But it wasn't air launched.

FASGW(H) should be a decent incremental upgrade from Sea Skua suitable for vessels up to 1000 tonnes and probably would cause some nasty damage to larger ships if it hit the vulnerable points, IIRC the performance increases over Sea Skua is something like a larger warhead (30kg up to 40kg) and apparently will be double the range of Sea Skua.

An interesting point is that with the French/British collaboration on the project, the FASGW(H) is the "heavy" element for the RN but it constitutes the "light" element for the MN

 

[StobieWan]

They have fixed wing jets to lug around the heavier stuff so perhaps that's where the dichotomy springs from ? Maybe they're looking at something nearer Harpoon size as their heavy element as a result.

 

[swerve]

... I'd personally think a larger FASGW-H variant (Sea Skua sized, that is) would be the more handy weapon given the performance enhancements they're going for.....

That's exactly what FASGW(H) is: a (roughly) Sea Skua sized missile. The published pictures & descriptions all agree. MBDA reckons it can use much the same ship storage & handling equipment.

 

[RobWilliams]

The thought of something heavier than FASGW(H) is something i'd like, but the current FASGW(H) will fit in just right below a F35B with SPEAR 3. Would still like some kind of AShM though.

 

[swerve]

We still have Harpoon - but can only fire it from things floating on the water since Nimrod was retired.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, true. I suppose my main hopes are that - pretty much - any future air group on a QEC would themselves be able to tackle any sort of task that's required. But I do get that as soon as we get a whiff of something which SPEAR 3/FASGW(H) would do sweet FA too that an Astute would be tasked to find it.

That's what makes me glad we're getting strike length silos in the Type 26, the more cruise missiles that can be chucked from the surface means that the Astutes can do more work below the waves.

Couple of minor updates vis-a-vis shipyards, y'know the decision that BAE were supposedly going to make before the end of 2012

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 13 Feb 2013 (pt 0003)

Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the comparative costs of building, during the gap between completion of the future aircraft carriers and the beginning of the construction of the planned Type 26 frigates, (a) no warships, (b) one offshore patrol vessel (OPV), (c) two OPVs and (d) three OPVs; and if he will make a statement. [142149]

Mr Dunne [holding answer 11 February 2012]:The Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) is the vehicle agreed by the last Administration for the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems to address any potential workload gap between the drawdown of the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier programme and the start of build work on the planned Type 26 Global Combat Ship. TOBA discussions with BAE Systems are ongoing.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 14 Feb 2013 (pt 0003)

Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Royal Navy has expressed an interest in manning one or more newly-constructed offshore patrol vessels; [142150]

(2) what assessment he has made of the potential utility of offshore patrol vessels in the future surface fleet. [142151]

Mr Dunne [holding answer 13 February 2013]:The role of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) is to ensure the Government can exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the territorial and economic waters of the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories in order to defend their integrity and protect offshore interests. The Royal Navy currently mans and operates three River Class OPVs and HMS Clyde which is an OPV(Helicopter), a total of four. We have no plans to operate or man additional OPVs.

Tricky times, tricky times indeed.