their it shows both the benefit of both deck edge lifts and the rather humble origins of the Invincible class and how lucky that the harrier was getting mature just as it was coming into service
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/558908_10151268787713205_1799844613_n.jpg
Much much wider, and longer (but that picture doesn't include the sponsons). Not to mention the far superior deck lift positions, they were fine in the Invincible's as an LPH but would be a real pain when operating Harriers i'd imagine.
On navymatters, there's a great graphic of the area of the two hangers* on top of eachother. I've attached it. The scale images of the JSF really shows why we needed such an increase in hangar space.
As for Syria, there's not a whole lot the Navy should be doing, apart from TLAM strikes, bit of NGFS, Apache strikes & maybe some mine clearance. Identical to Libya, essentially.
At least we can look to the future and say that the UK/French navies will be more expeditionary than they are now. RN bringing back carrier strike & surface launched cruise missiles and the MN bringing up surface launched cruise missiles too as well as sub surface with the Barracuda class SSN.
*At least, AFAIK it's the CVS' hangar.
Much much wider, and longer (but that picture doesn't include the sponsons). Not to mention the far superior deck lift positions, they were fine in the Invincible's as an LPH but would be a real pain when operating Harriers i'd imagine.
On navymatters, there's a great graphic of the area of the two hangers* on top of eachother. I've attached it. The scale images of the JSF really shows why we needed such an increase in hangar space.
As for Syria, there's not a whole lot the Navy should be doing, apart from TLAM strikes, bit of NGFS, Apache strikes & maybe some mine clearance. Identical to Libya, essentially.
At least we can look to the future and say that the UK/French navies will be more expeditionary than they are now. RN bringing back carrier strike & surface launched cruise missiles and the MN bringing up surface launched cruise missiles too as well as sub surface with the Barracuda class SSN.
*At least, AFAIK it's the CVS' hangar.
The MN could at least lob some MM40 Exocets at land targets (besides carrier strikes).
An artack at Syria would have the RAF bosses up in joy as it is probably the most ideal situation in which they can show what the RAF brings to the table when it comes to reachin out and touching somebody overseas.
The RN would play a really minor role again which may not help their cause at all. Doing deep strikes with Apaches over Syrian terrain may result in something more akin to the battering some Apaches received in OIF than what happened over Lybia.
An artack at Syria would have the RAF bosses up in joy as it is probably the most ideal situation in which they can show what the RAF brings to the table when it comes to reachin out and touching somebody overseas.
The RN would play a really minor role again which may not help their cause at all. Doing deep strikes with Apaches over Syrian terrain may result in something more akin to the battering some Apaches received in OIF than what happened over Lybia.
It's trickier than that, Cyprus opposed deployment of strike aircraft at RAF Akrotiri for Libya and although they actually don't have the authority to do much about it - it being sovereign British territory and all - that was enough to prevent their deployment for Ellamy. Considering the nature of the Syrian situation - chemical weapons and all - it could be different. Currently E-3D Sentry AWACS, Sentinel R1 & AAR tankers deployed there IIRC. But that's really more for the RAF thread.
Brings back to the carrier idea, wouldn't have these issues with a QEC. I do disagree though that Syria would be bad for the Navy, if anything it highlights the critical areas that need to be fixed for frontline ops rather better than peacetime obligations, where such things can be ignored because they're not being used.
It highlights the effectiveness & flexibility of carrier strike, it highlights problems with our SSN fleet composition (currently 5 boats active rather than the supposed minimum of 7) and our surface fleet in terms of striking land targets.
Should emphasise this is very much about how a Syria intervention could unfold, and not the why.
Brings back to the carrier idea, wouldn't have these issues with a QEC. I do disagree though that Syria would be bad for the Navy, if anything it highlights the critical areas that need to be fixed for frontline ops rather better than peacetime obligations, where such things can be ignored because they're not being used.
It highlights the effectiveness & flexibility of carrier strike, it highlights problems with our SSN fleet composition (currently 5 boats active rather than the supposed minimum of 7) and our surface fleet in terms of striking land targets.
Should emphasise this is very much about how a Syria intervention could unfold, and not the why.
Last edited:
Thankfully Libya happened when it did and it wasn't a crisis in Syria, or it would have been very bleak for the RN. Hopefully it doesn't matter now and the RAF can safely enjoy their place in the Sun without any challenge to the CVF/F35b agenda.
TBH I think the timing has fallen at dodgy daves feet again, another seven months from now and the crab air fast jet boys will be down to seven sqns only, with the RFTG back in uk and Lusty bowing out, Ocean coming out of devonport some time next year. If this syria intervention was to happen then then he would be looking like old mother hubbard.:finger
Fast Mover
New Member
I wonder what it will take for the Government to accept that our forces need to be of a size and level of capability to be able to make an effective contribution to international crises?! SDSR made a statement along the lines of "we do not foresee any crises in the next 5 years" (that is not a quote - just an approximation from memory). Yet, in the space of 3 years, we have been involved in Libya, Mali (to an extent, for the UK) and now it looks all but certain we will be involved in Libya.
Whilst these crises keep coming, we are still losing the last Invincible class next year along with 2 more Tornado GR4 squadrons, and Sentinel the year after?! We have an almost miniscule number of SSNs and a precarious number of DDGs and FFGs, with no investment having been made in the most utilised capabilty for these types of ships in recent ops - land attack cruise missiles. I know air defence is essential but how many ASTERS, Standards or Seawolfs etc have been fired in anger since 1991 as compared to TLAMs.
The MPs who are meeting to discuss Syria on Thursday at Westminster need to question the government's continued cuts to defence whilst maintaining the same - if not ever increasing - demands on those dwindling forces. I hate fantasy fleets, but if HMG are going to continue with foreign interventions, they must fund the forces to an appropriate level, giving us increased numbers of DDGs/FFGs (with strike length cells), SSNs and strive for more squadrons of fast jets both from land bases and, in a few years, a CVF - with 36 bloody jets on it - not 12!
Rant (almost) over - it just seems illogical to cut the forces to levels I wouldn't have believed possible a decade ago whilst giving them ever more to do. Does anyone else find it a bit of a joke that we act like a leading member of the Allies/the West yet we contribute a tiny fraction of the deployed forces... one Tomahawk firing SSN in this case!
Fund your forces UK gov!
Whilst these crises keep coming, we are still losing the last Invincible class next year along with 2 more Tornado GR4 squadrons, and Sentinel the year after?! We have an almost miniscule number of SSNs and a precarious number of DDGs and FFGs, with no investment having been made in the most utilised capabilty for these types of ships in recent ops - land attack cruise missiles. I know air defence is essential but how many ASTERS, Standards or Seawolfs etc have been fired in anger since 1991 as compared to TLAMs.
The MPs who are meeting to discuss Syria on Thursday at Westminster need to question the government's continued cuts to defence whilst maintaining the same - if not ever increasing - demands on those dwindling forces. I hate fantasy fleets, but if HMG are going to continue with foreign interventions, they must fund the forces to an appropriate level, giving us increased numbers of DDGs/FFGs (with strike length cells), SSNs and strive for more squadrons of fast jets both from land bases and, in a few years, a CVF - with 36 bloody jets on it - not 12!
Rant (almost) over - it just seems illogical to cut the forces to levels I wouldn't have believed possible a decade ago whilst giving them ever more to do. Does anyone else find it a bit of a joke that we act like a leading member of the Allies/the West yet we contribute a tiny fraction of the deployed forces... one Tomahawk firing SSN in this case!
Fund your forces UK gov!
Not neccesarily, if we're talking just about the Navy then currently we've been lead to believe that we currently have 5 SSN's active in service, with Astute and Ambush reported some time ago to be close to be declared operational.
Meaning that potentially - in 7 months time - our submarine fleet could have increased by 40% to 7 boats with the inclusion of 2 of some of the most advanced boats on the planet. If anything a more promising future for our sub fleet, as much as people talk about 7 being too low (i agree, i'm on team Astute 8) it'll be a marked improvement from what we've had since Turbulent went over a year ago.
Even if Illustrious had gone, Ocean would be there* and the same fleet would be about, just +2 TLAM capable SSN's.
*Course, brings up all the big problems about having a single LPH available some of the time until we get the QEC.
Unless we get some good news about one of those boats being the one to chuck some cruise missiles (good in a sense that they're in service).
Yup, can't explain how much of a shite move that is.
The more prudent issue on that front isn't the reduction of Tornado but the fact that Typhoon won't be capable to take on the role when Tornado leaves in March 2019, but that's for the RAF thread really.
Also, Sentinel was slated to be gone post Afghan but they are looking at options for retention. Libya, Mali and - presumably - Syria have/will demonstrate how much of a brilliant capability it offers.
RAF's Sentinel fleet could escape retirement, says MoD
5 current boats rising to the 7 in the future, reasonable times ahead.
Type 26 is precarious, Type 45 isn't. Won't find out until SDSR 2015. All current indications are positive about the 13, i'd have suspected to have read more about cuts to the program. Gon't get me wrong, plenty of time for cuts to happen.
No investment in a capability that our frigates or destroyers have previously ever had or deployed. Fantastic it's being brought in, very important for expeditionary operations, but we are investing in it for the RN.
+16 cells (according to NavyMatters all potential 64 could be strike length if we wanted) which can be strike length on the Type 45's and +24 dedicated strike silo on the Type 26. Decent step up.
Not having TLAM capability doesn't directly result in your ships being sunk, not having a decent AWD can. High end enough to deal with very serious air threats. Plus, like I said, future TLAM investment is happening.
Navy expansion is something i'd like to see, no question about it. But we've got to be realistic.
Plus, you really really REALLY need to understand that the 12 number is the standard number of jets when deployed out of UK waters during peacetime. plus associated air group. Far more and far more capable than the peacetime Harrier deployment on a CVS.
Does that mean we can't get more? No, certainly not.
Agreed that the astutes can't come soon enough, as for the T boats, ones in devonport for an overhaul and Tireless ( I think, has reactor problems & only 10% core useage remaining also).
So then there were three!
So anyone got a guesstimate on the T lam load out on a T boat?
Doff my cap to more practical knowledge as I'm a skimmer and proud of it
As for Ocean, she will have Hats/sats to do once out of the dock before sea trials and then a BOST package, be lucky if she is fully operational and deployable before dec 2014
If it was Tireless, she returned to Plymouth in February this year. I thought there had been more recent trouble, so it could be another T-boat, but i'm not sure on that.
BBC News - HMS Tireless returns to Plymouth after reactor leak
30 total weapon payload (TLAM + Spearfish), but nowhere close to fully loaded. We haven't got the stockpile to do it. IIRC Triumph in Libya fired 7 missiles and Turbulent did fire but I don't know how many. Turbulent replaced Triumph on station, so presumably had a slightly larger stock of TLAM on board. Wouldn't be surprised if Triumph exhaused her stocks to be honest, wouldn't be surprised at all. [the exact number bounces around depending where you look]
If we go for TLAM on the Type 26, hopefully we will increase investment in our stock of missiles.
True, true. The biggest pigs ear of the whole situation is that we'll have one LPH available for part of the year for what, the next 6 years before QE reaches her IOC? She'll be about from 2016, but won't actually be theoretically fully capable by 2020 at the earliest.
BBC News - HMS Tireless returns to Plymouth after reactor leak
30 total weapon payload (TLAM + Spearfish), but nowhere close to fully loaded. We haven't got the stockpile to do it. IIRC Triumph in Libya fired 7 missiles and Turbulent did fire but I don't know how many. Turbulent replaced Triumph on station, so presumably had a slightly larger stock of TLAM on board. Wouldn't be surprised if Triumph exhaused her stocks to be honest, wouldn't be surprised at all. [the exact number bounces around depending where you look]
If we go for TLAM on the Type 26, hopefully we will increase investment in our stock of missiles.
True, true. The biggest pigs ear of the whole situation is that we'll have one LPH available for part of the year for what, the next 6 years before QE reaches her IOC? She'll be about from 2016, but won't actually be theoretically fully capable by 2020 at the earliest.
spsun100001
New Member
RFA home bases
Can anyone advise where our RFA's are home ported? I understand that the bay class are in Plymouth as our other amphibious ships are based there but I can't find any information as to the home ports for the rest of the RFA's fleet.
Thanks in advance.
Can anyone advise where our RFA's are home ported? I understand that the bay class are in Plymouth as our other amphibious ships are based there but I can't find any information as to the home ports for the rest of the RFA's fleet.
Thanks in advance.
My understanding is that - by and large - the RFA operates out of Plymouth, at least whenever I read about a ship either returning from or going to a deployment mention HMNB Devonport.
RFA Cardigan Bay and RFA Fort Victoria who recently replaced RFA Wave Ruler are based at Bahrain, East of Suez. RFA Black Rover is in the South Atlantic, replacing Gold Rover earlier in the year.
RFA Cardigan Bay and RFA Fort Victoria who recently replaced RFA Wave Ruler are based at Bahrain, East of Suez. RFA Black Rover is in the South Atlantic, replacing Gold Rover earlier in the year.
spsun100001
New Member
Thanks Rob. I appreciate the reply.
Just an interesting image from another forum
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=220456&d=1247152557
nice big hanger
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=220456&d=1247152557
nice big hanger
Anixtu
New Member
RFAs do not have home ports. They go alongside wherever a berth is available and cheap. Maintenance contracts are let in "clusters" to AMP Falmouth (Bays, Argus) and Cammell Laird at Birkenhead (Forts, Waves, Diligence, SHTs). This means that they generally drydock for refits and heavy maintenance at those ports, and are likely to visit them occasionally for other maintenance periods.
Bays used to make more use of Marchwood, but that has reduced since their introduction. At one time Portland was developing into the main centre for RFA operations, but again that has reduced as berth contracts have changed. Forts can often be seen at DM Crombie. Argus uses Falmouth as it is conveniently close to Culdrose for the embarked FAA types.
Overseas, the Bay on MCM support tasking operates out of Bahrain as that is where the MCMs are based, but may go to Dubai or ASRY (Bahrain) for maintenance. KIPION Tanker tends to visit Fujairah, Dubai, Jebel Ali and Bahrain.
It is a good image, any image that shows the carriers in the future - IMO - is good. There's a great video showing the pair of them operating various types of aircraft, all CG naturally, but great to watch.
It's big for sure, much bigger than what we've got which is good. When the air group starts getting ~25 and bigger than cabs will be parked up on deck. If the image showing a potential hanger layout of the QEC is accurate, it gives a bit of an indication that the Navy wants (when possible) to keep all their aircraft in the hangar rather than parking them on the deck USN style.
Probably because IIRC the RFA is technically a civilian outfit (crew classed as civilians) rather than military outfit isn't it?
Last edited:
Anixtu
New Member
Differences in personnel management. RN personnel go home with their ship to their 'homeport', where they may have family housed in service accommodation. RFA personnel go home from a ship to wherever home is, be it Newcastle, Lerwick or Thailand.
Ah right, cheers. 
Couple of RN news updates
Quay concerns delay launch of navy submarine | UK news | theguardian.com
Roll out of HMS Artful - which was due to be done later this year - has been delayed until early 2014 due to concerns about the structural integrity of the wet dock quay. Some surveys have indicated there may be a deteriation in it's structure, so considering it's to do with a billion pound submarine then better safe than sorry. My main gripe is to do with the production shedule, how will it impact the construction of the other boats currently there in Barrow? An Astute takes up a lot of room . . .
Still, this bit is a bit weird
Crowsnest AEW project to cost up to £500mn, UK says
More info about the projected cost of Crowsnest & crucially more solid info about capability. £500mn project cost and FOC will not be reached until 2022, IOC will be reached in 2020 but
Fingers crossed we don't really need these things too seriously from 2016 - 2022 then . . . .
There was an article - can't remember where from right now, i'll try dig it out - that reported that Royal Navy officers were working with DE&S to try and advance the Crowsnest program by two years, effectively moving the main gate decision from 2017 to 2015. Makes the numbers seem much more reasonable; IOC 2018, FOC 2022, that I could deal with.
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/9676980005/"]HMS Queen Elizabeth's Long Range Radar and mast cap begin the journey to Rosyth - September 5 | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]
The S1850 LRR & mast cap for Queen Elizabeth's forward island (if i'm not mistaken) has left the Netherlands for Rosyth, it's due to reach there next week.
Couple of RN news updates
Quay concerns delay launch of navy submarine | UK news | theguardian.com
Roll out of HMS Artful - which was due to be done later this year - has been delayed until early 2014 due to concerns about the structural integrity of the wet dock quay. Some surveys have indicated there may be a deteriation in it's structure, so considering it's to do with a billion pound submarine then better safe than sorry. My main gripe is to do with the production shedule, how will it impact the construction of the other boats currently there in Barrow? An Astute takes up a lot of room . . .
Still, this bit is a bit weird
Probably crossed wires here but Artful's launch has been delayed, that's a fact, late this year to early the next. So if it's not Artful is it Audacious? Probably not considering Audacious was laid down something like 4 years after Artful. Interesting though.
Crowsnest AEW project to cost up to £500mn, UK says
More info about the projected cost of Crowsnest & crucially more solid info about capability. £500mn project cost and FOC will not be reached until 2022, IOC will be reached in 2020 but
So for our IOC we could at the absolute maximum have 2 cabs ready to go, with the usual 'our allies have got our back' jargon. Total buy of 10 AEW sets with 8 to be fitted on Merlin HM2's, presumably to form two squadrons of 4 aircraft.
Fingers crossed we don't really need these things too seriously from 2016 - 2022 then . . . .
There was an article - can't remember where from right now, i'll try dig it out - that reported that Royal Navy officers were working with DE&S to try and advance the Crowsnest program by two years, effectively moving the main gate decision from 2017 to 2015. Makes the numbers seem much more reasonable; IOC 2018, FOC 2022, that I could deal with.
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/9676980005/"]HMS Queen Elizabeth's Long Range Radar and mast cap begin the journey to Rosyth - September 5 | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]
The S1850 LRR & mast cap for Queen Elizabeth's forward island (if i'm not mistaken) has left the Netherlands for Rosyth, it's due to reach there next week.