The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Thanks to both of you for the tip - I'll get through Vanguard and then come back at Rebuilding. Looks like I can get the paperback for £12 or so used or £19 new so that's not too much of a body blow.

I'm looking forward to it - it's a period of history I'm shamefully clueless about.

Edit : Feck it, feeling frisky, ordered Rebuilding the RN as well.

 

[overlander]

HMS Edinburgh makes last entry into Portsmouth.

My tribute to her, a magnificent ship.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-edinburgh-makes-last-entry-into-portsmouth

 

[StobieWan]

We had our money's worth out of the batch III's for sure

 

[RobWilliams]

Crying shame they were turned away from a pub in Edinburgh because they were in uniform, disgusting.

Anyway, trials have begun for the RNs new HRAS (Heavy Replenishment At Sea) equipment at HMS Raleigh. Compared to the current system which can carry 2t of stores per transfer, this new kit can transfer 5t of stores, they've got 3 setups which mimic the transfer points on a QEC, Type 23 and Type 45.

Trials begin on state-of-the-art demonstrator for next generation ships | Royal Navy

 

[StobieWan]

Happened to some Army guys in Leicester, attending a funeral of a fallen comrade. Literally, they're all wound up, just want a diet coke to clear their throats, some knob head turns them away.

Sometimes I wonder if this country deserves the people we have defending it. Other days are more gloomy....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We had our money's worth out of the batch III's for sure

You wait to you get your copy of DK Brown’s ‘Rebuilding the Royal Navy’ and get a look at the Type 43. Now that’s a ship.

Happened to some Army guys in Leicester, attending a funeral of a fallen comrade. Literally, they're all wound up, just want a diet coke to clear their throats, some knob head turns them away.

Sometimes I wonder if this country deserves the people we have defending it. Other days are more gloomy....

Whenever Australia does something dumbarse just have to imagine the UK and know things are ten times worse there…

 

[rjtjrt]

I see HMS Edinburgh's saluting gun in one of the links above.
What is used as a saluting gun, are they standard across all ships (ie same weapon), is modern ammunition still made, are they hard mounted (I guess not)? Is it the Hotchkiss 3pdr?
Hard to imagine the space and trouble to store, train on, manufacture ammunition, etc in these cash strapped days.
I do like tradition, but is there a cheaper way to make a boom and flash?
John

 

[deepsixteen]

I see HMS Edinburgh's saluting gun in one of the links above.
What is used as a saluting gun, are they standard across all ships (ie same weapon), is modern ammunition still made, are they hard mounted (I guess not)? Is it the Hotchkiss 3pdr?
Hard to imagine the space and trouble to store, train on, manufacture ammunition, etc in these cash strapped days.
I do like tradition, but is there a cheaper way to make a boom and flash?
John

Hi

It would seem to be at a reasonable cost for an impressive display when on flag-waving duties, as I recall they are small and easily stowed. Four bolts secure them to the deck and they are simple to operate, not much training required, standard across the fleet.
http://www.publictenders.net/node/1762484

Deepsixteen

 

[rjtjrt]

Slightly tongue in cheek, but wouldn't a flash-bang, attached to a bag of flour with a rubber band, make a suitable alternative in these "doing more with less" times?
All the elements - bang, flash and "smoke" to appease the traditionalists.

 

[RobWilliams]

The day we can't afford to use those little cannons for ceremonial purposes will be a dark day for the country, not because they'd not be used, but because we'd have to be bloody desperate for things to cut.

Besides, for propellant just use Pyrodex, black powder substitute that doesn't require a licence to buy or store, even for a regular civilian.

 

[1805]

Hi

It would seem to be at a reasonable cost for an impressive display when on flag-waving duties, as I recall they are small and easily stowed. Four bolts secure them to the deck and they are simple to operate, not much training required, standard across the fleet.
http://www.publictenders.net/node/1762484

Deepsixteen

I think that just shows how bureaucratic the MOD is, that they think it is necessary to go through an OJEU process for 10-13k annual spend. No wonder they have c10,000 staff. Not only is the process slow, the cost of running it for something as small as this is probably more than the contract, certainly more than any value they might have achieved!

 

[StobieWan]

You wait to you get your copy of DK Brown’s ‘Rebuilding the Royal Navy’ and get a look at the Type 43. Now that’s a ship.



Whenever Australia does something dumbarse just have to imagine the UK and know things are ten times worse there…

Got my Vanguard to Trident today, Rebuilding is on the way, hubba We're kicking alternate RN stuff over on Warships and I'm definitely thinking post 82, there should have been a wakeup call over some decent sized escorts - hell, we even got cash from outside the MOD budget to replace the losses, so that'd have taken some of the sting out of it.

And as always, glad to have cheered you up. You nearly had me for a neighbour last year when it looked like I might get redundancy (years salary in hand, feck it, I'm emigrating) I know, another whinging pom to feck things up

The Leicester thing got a lot of attention from the media and the majority of the comments rhymed with "anchors".

 

[kev 99]

Got my Vanguard to Trident today, Rebuilding is on the way, hubba We're kicking alternate RN stuff over on Warships and I'm definitely thinking post 82, there should have been a wakeup call over some decent sized escorts - hell, we even got cash from outside the MOD budget to replace the losses, so that'd have taken some of the sting out of it.

Well we did with the Type 22 batch 3s.

I think the main problem with what you're saying is that we were in the process of finishing a class of ships that should really of been bigger and more capable (Type 42s) but were still at the start of their service lives with long careers ahead of them. You can't just chuck them on the scrap head because they're not really up to the job they were designed for (even if it was because the job had changed).

On top of that we had and were trying to maintain a substantial fleet of Frigates for the Cold war.

 

[Volkodav]

I am curious as to how many Type 43s were planned, when they were to have been ordered and were the Batch III Type 42s ordered instead of them or were they always planned to serve along side them? Were they intended as DLGs and replacements for the Counties?

With the Falklands experience it always surprised my that the UK didn't proceed with the sale on Invincible and perhaps one or both of her sisters as well with the aim to build two or three larger more capable carriers instead. Deletion of Sea Dart and the associated systems would have saved a considerable amount of cash, perhaps enough to have built a Hermes or Victorious sized alternative.

Invincible to Australia, Hermes retained; new 30000ton STOVL carrier constructed, Illustrious to India; second new ship completed, Ark to Australia; third new ship completed, Hermes offered to India or scrapped. RN ends up with three new large carriers flying 30 odd FA2 Harriers and various Sea King types.

Type 23 retained as originally intended (a towed array sonar tug) and a number of Batch IV Type 22 built, to replace the Type 21. A new multi-role destroyer is developed to follow on from the Type 42, possibly even using AEGIS, to replace the Counties and Bristol. I remember seeing a pre-Horizon sketch of a UK destroyer that was slightly larger than a Ticonderoga.

 

[harryriedl]

I am curious as to how many Type 43s were planned, when they were to have been ordered and were the Batch III Type 42s ordered instead of them or were they always planned to serve along side them? Were they intended as DLGs and replacements for the Counties?

With the Falklands experience it always surprised my that the UK didn't proceed with the sale on Invincible and perhaps one or both of her sisters as well with the aim to build two or three larger more capable carriers instead. Deletion of Sea Dart and the associated systems would have saved a considerable amount of cash, perhaps enough to have built a Hermes or Victorious sized alternative.

Invincible to Australia, Hermes retained; new 30000ton STOVL carrier constructed, Illustrious to India; second new ship completed, Ark to Australia; third new ship completed, Hermes offered to India or scrapped. RN ends up with three new large carriers flying 30 odd FA2 Harriers and various Sea King types.

Type 23 retained as originally intended (a towed array sonar tug) and a number of Batch IV Type 22 built, to replace the Type 21. A new multi-role destroyer is developed to follow on from the Type 42, possibly even using AEGIS, to replace the Counties and Bristol. I remember seeing a pre-Horizon sketch of a UK destroyer that was slightly larger than a Ticonderoga.

I think the main problem with all those ideas was that they were all very new or hadn't even commissioned such as Lusty commissioning at sea on the way the Falklands. The T21 were all less than 10 years old, all or most of the T42 were in their build phase and the T22 were in the same sort of state and they were all over budget to various extents(partly due inflation, technology, and union stuff and badly delayed) plus old warships in dire need of replacement anyway were still sailing such as the early T14 Blackwood-class, and various other vessels such as the near obsolete T12 Whitby-class , T41 Leopard-class, and is only some of the old stuff floating around at the time, so even though their was extra money the need for replacement vessels for all the end of life stuff just didn't give enough time for new designs or brushing off older designs which were much more suitable designs post Falklands

 

[1805]

I think the main problem with all those ideas was that they were all very new or hadn't even commissioned such as Lusty commissioning at sea on the way the Falklands. The T21 were all less than 10 years old, all most of the T42 were in their build phase and the T22 were in the same sort of state and they were all over budget to various extents(partly due inflation, technology, and union stuff and badly delayed) plus old warships in dire need of replacement anyway were still sailing early T14 Blackwood-class, various near obsolete T12 Whitby-class , T41 Leopard-class, and is only some of the old stuff floating around at the time, so even though their was extra money the need for replacement vessels for all the end of life stuff just didn't give enough time for new designs or brushing off older designs which were much more suitable designs post Falklands

A generation before but I have always thought it would have been better to have refitted the Type 41/61s with the 7 spare Ikara sets from the cancelled Type 81s, rather than waste the conversions on Leanders that already had MATCH.

 

[1805]

I am curious as to how many Type 43s were planned, when they were to have been ordered and were the Batch III Type 42s ordered instead of them or were they always planned to serve along side them? Were they intended as DLGs and replacements for the Counties?

With the Falklands experience it always surprised my that the UK didn't proceed with the sale on Invincible and perhaps one or both of her sisters as well with the aim to build two or three larger more capable carriers instead. Deletion of Sea Dart and the associated systems would have saved a considerable amount of cash, perhaps enough to have built a Hermes or Victorious sized alternative.

Invincible to Australia, Hermes retained; new 30000ton STOVL carrier constructed, Illustrious to India; second new ship completed, Ark to Australia; third new ship completed, Hermes offered to India or scrapped. RN ends up with three new large carriers flying 30 odd FA2 Harriers and various Sea King types.

Type 23 retained as originally intended (a towed array sonar tug) and a number of Batch IV Type 22 built, to replace the Type 21. A new multi-role destroyer is developed to follow on from the Type 42, possibly even using AEGIS, to replace the Counties and Bristol. I remember seeing a pre-Horizon sketch of a UK destroyer that was slightly larger than a Ticonderoga.

I think the Type 43 was a bit of a lucky escape, with a strange helicopter arrangement. Post 1982 we would have been better off with the 4 batch 3 Type 22 being fitted with Sea Dart, or if not possible a DLG c6000t full GT version of Bristol (with a hanger & no Ikara) or new design. This would have enabled the earlier exit of the remaining batch 1 & 2 Type 42s in the late 90s/early 2000s. Certainly sad to have to see the Batch 3 retire which were excellent sea boat while we had to retain the fairly poor ones.

 

[kev 99]

I think the Type 43 was a bit of a lucky escape, with a strange helicopter arrangement. Post 1982 we would have been better off with the 4 batch 3 Type 22 being fitted with Sea Dart, or if not possible a DLG c6000t full GT version of Bristol (with a hanger & no Ikara) or new design. This would have enabled the earlier exit of the remaining batch 1 & 2 Type 42s in the late 90s/early 2000s. Certainly sad to have to see the Batch 3 retire which were excellent sea boat while we had to retain the fairly poor ones.

According to D K Brown Type 22 with Sea Dart wasn't really a goer, the hull arrangement didn't suit the Sea Dart magazine.

 

[Volkodav]

According to D K Brown Type 22 with Sea Dart wasn't really a goer, the hull arrangement didn't suit the Sea Dart magazine.

That's the irony with the RN not going for Tartar, a Mk 13 would likely have been comparatively simple to have worked in forward of the hanger of a type 22, in a similar arrangement to that seen on Tromp and Audace. If the weight of Sea Wolf was too great for it to be retained in addition to Tartar, then a Mk 29 for NATO Sea Sparrow, would have been an option.

As I understand it Sea Dart, as the Sea Slug replacement, was in a different class to SM-1MR and was probably more a Terrier replacement in terms of capability, making it more of a compact alternative to SM-1ER. Looking at it in those terms it could be argued that Tartar / SM-1MR armed frigates would have been complementary to, rather than a replacement for the Sea Dart armed destroyers. This would be even more the case had additional Type 82s or the Type 43s been built.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the Type 43 was a bit of a lucky escape, with a strange helicopter arrangement.

Strange compared to destroyers, identical compared to aircraft carriers. Those people that designed that ship actually knew what they were doing…

Post 1982 we would have been better off with the 4 batch 3 Type 22 being fitted with Sea Dart, or if not possible a DLG c6000t full GT version of Bristol (with a hanger & no Ikara) or new design.

Both design concepts are impossible. Which is they there were never built and why the Type 42 was built and the Type 43 nearly built.

It isn’t so strange that the RN wasn’t boosted and provided with what it really needed as a sea control force after the Falklands. Because it had been Government policy before the Falklands to convert the RN into an all-ASW, NATO role Navy. Which was why they were decommissioning all those carriers, amphibs and support ships before the war. The result of the Falklands was a stalemate. The RN was able to retain the light carriers, Sea Harrier and amphibs and some support capability but only with upgrades and marginal improvements. They didn’t get what the war indicated they needed: a fleet carrier, the P.1216 fighter, fixed wing AEW, a new AAW destroyer and an LHD (aka Commando Carrier).