My fault, I fluffed it first
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
My fault, I fluffed it first
Vulcan
Member
Considering the pressure they've been under to announce a date they wouldn't have announced the intention if they weren't fairly convinced of it, a 3 month window is a reasonable timeframe to say 'about then'. I wouldn't be overly concerned about it considering the attention it has received in both worlds.
Last edited:
Vulcan
Member
Should be a good sight, wait until the jackals get their teeth into her when she goes alongside for 'defect rectification'.
Looking forward for the shipbuilding strategy to be released, would be nice to have something looking more forwards than we currently seem to.
t68
Well-Known Member
Oh crikey I'm under no illusion that they are under immense pressure to get the ball rolling, they will want to be pretty confident that they will but it wasnt that long ago that they could not even say when still will be cut from budgetary and contract reason.
I hope they do kick on when they say but I would not be announcing anything till the hade a signature on a document, it just seems to me that they are creating their own problems for a short to gain it takes pressure of BAE and it's now all on goverment to get the project moving in the time frame listed, and what happens if they can't agree?
Last edited:
Vulcan
Member
It's arse-covering really, nobody wanted to give a date without it being pretty sure or else they'd get chewed out over it. Part of me believes that all the detail will come out when they release the shipbuilding strategy whenever that is. If things need doing now however, i'm of the opinion they probably would be getting the ball rolling.
In other news, attempts to retain Harpoon (1C) have failed and she'll be leaving service in 2018 with no funded replacement on the horizon at this point. The heaviest AShM on the horizon would be the helo launched Sea Venom.
UK to retire GWS60 Harpoon at end of 2018 | IHS Jane's 360
Sea Ceptor production orders for Type 26 have been signed and a planned ISD for the system on the Type 23's will be at some point next year.
UK confirms Sea Ceptor order for Type 26 programme | IHS Jane's 360
Harpoon/asw numbers
Hi,
What are peoples thoughts on the impending removal or harpoon from service with out funded replacement.
Despite the 1c versions age, it seems madness to me to not have some form of anti ship missile throughout the fleet.
Additionally, with increased russian naval activity through and close to British waters, seems clear to me that we need to maintain as high a number of dedicated t23 asw units in and around the uk. This can be helped by deploying t45 to kipion, as fres, to the med as we saw recently with diamond, or should we send anything south.
However, without wanting to play fantasy fleets, with the increasing sub threat isn't there an increasing pressure to perhaps scrap the t31 and go with a full build of asw t26?
And to aid this and i realise we cant just grow money on trees, but if tommahawk were added to t45, we could perhaps stop gap the sub east of suez as our response to potential land strike that may be required to allow for more assets in the north sea/baltic and north atlantic regions
Cheers Sellers
Hi,
What are peoples thoughts on the impending removal or harpoon from service with out funded replacement.
Despite the 1c versions age, it seems madness to me to not have some form of anti ship missile throughout the fleet.
Additionally, with increased russian naval activity through and close to British waters, seems clear to me that we need to maintain as high a number of dedicated t23 asw units in and around the uk. This can be helped by deploying t45 to kipion, as fres, to the med as we saw recently with diamond, or should we send anything south.
However, without wanting to play fantasy fleets, with the increasing sub threat isn't there an increasing pressure to perhaps scrap the t31 and go with a full build of asw t26?
And to aid this and i realise we cant just grow money on trees, but if tommahawk were added to t45, we could perhaps stop gap the sub east of suez as our response to potential land strike that may be required to allow for more assets in the north sea/baltic and north atlantic regions
Cheers Sellers
t68
Well-Known Member
We don't know what the final outcome what capabilty the T31 will have, they are meant to be a cheaper escort so I imagine that they will have a limited ASW capabilty which may be enough to satisfy the requirements close to home waters leaving T26 for mainstay operations.
But it is glaring obvious that the UK needs more 1st tier ASW hulls as the original order was 13 from memory with the only only reason of there demise being budgetary along with the cut in numbers to the T45 Destroyer program, I also think the UK sold themselves short with only 7 Astute submarine
t68
Well-Known Member
Ah thanks wasn't awere of that, but would that have made the build program cheaper whilst also having hulls FFBNW upgradable at a later date if needed?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the financial pressures the RN is facing, one has to wonder whether the two QE carriers were the way to go? Not sure if two 30-40,000 ton vessels would have been all that less expensive. Giving up the nuclear deterrent would allow more Astute subs in lieu of Successor boomers. The former would be more useful but if the UK feels nuclear deterrence can't be outsourced then something had to give, first it was the Darling reduction and now the Type 26 ( and probably the Type 31).
t68
Well-Known Member
I think they made the right choice in regards to CVFfor it primary role of a strike carrier, the problem facing the RN is the lack of aviation support on the current amphiboius warfare vessels with the imminent retirement of Ocean
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Someone has finally got to the bottom of the delays with the RFA's new Korean-built tankers. It all sounds manageable.
NZ will have to deal with any similar teething issues on its own, being the sole purchaser to date of the RR/HHI tanker design.
spsun100001
New Member
On your last point, we should fit the Type 26 with the US Mk41 VLS so that they can carry Tomahawk thus releasing our submarines for ASW and anti-surface missions. I doubt we will though. I'm prepared to bet that they enter service Fitted For But Not With a strike VLS capability.
In terms of your first point about Harpoon, it is scandalous. The surface fleet of the Belgian Navy will have more anti-ship capability than the Royal Navy. Completely shameful.
Helicopter launched ASM's are not an acceptable substitute. When the replacement for Sea Skua comes into service, it will only be of use against sub-frigate size vessels as the missile range means that the helicopter would have to go within the SAM envelope of most warships above that size. Plus the Merlin can't even carry any ASM's: they will only be carried by the Lynx Wildcat. Warships on ASW missions will need to carry Merlin as the Lynx Wildcat as no ASW sensor capability and that leaves those vessel with no ASM capability of any type either on the ship or on the helicopter.
Furthermore, we don't intend to fit a long range ASM to the F35 so our carriers would have no anti surface strike capability without sending the F35 into the envelope of any surface vessel equipped with an area defence SAM.
If they have solved the speed restrictions that affected the Astute class SSN's on their introduction into service then they would be effective anti-ship platforms. But if a Royal navy carrier strike group was challenged by a single destroyer with an area defence SAM capability and SSM's, then if it's escorting SSN was on an ASW or cruise missile tasking or was not placed to intercept, it would have no choice but to run away in the other direction.
Still, at least the politicians have got their priorities right. Spending the additional cost over and above what we were contractually committed to pay to construct a load of next to useless patrol boats is far more important than having any type of meaningful anti-ship capability in the surface fleet or on the F35.
You couldn't make it up.
Last edited:
Vulcan
Member
That's been confirmed in the House of Commons i believe, as incompetent as some may see the Government I find it more likely they'd be gunning around empty (or ~50% full) than not fitted at all.
Plenty of OTS options available if we want to pick them up.
As for paying for useless patrol boats, the alternative was to not buy them and have BAE sack a large portion of the workforce only to then re-hire and ramp up with inexperienced people to start building Type 26 which is under budgetary scrutiny already. I don't think it's neccesarily a bad trade off overall to keep the people who make their living by building warships on staff when the next big project comes through.
It's short terminism like that which causes massive problems down the line and, probably, results in a cheaper project overall more likely to meet the schedule.
spsun100001
New Member
As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, we had agreed a sum of around £200m to keep the yard workers employed during the shipbuilding gap even if there was nothing for them to do in order to preserve the skill base. We have then forked out around £150m on top of this for three useless patrol boats that duplicate capabilities we already have. I think we have also ordered a further two (at what cost I don't know) due to T26 delays.
These ships cannot possibly be used in the manner stated by the MOD of substituting for frigates as every mission you can envisage (anti-piracy, maritime interdiction, search and rescue, disaster relief etc.) requires a helicopter capability which requires a hanger rather than just a landing deck.
We should have ordered three vessels with a hangar which would have been some use and kept the yards in work and put the rest to buying RBS15, NMS, Exocet or any of the other bolt on deck SSM missiles for our T23's and Type 45's.
Vulcan
Member
You are unfamiliar with the TOBA, it was (AFAIK) specifically stated that ship build/support work of the value of £230m a year would go to those yards. It was not MOD sliding over a pile of money just to keep people on staff.
I don't like the design either, but the sarcastic way you described 'skewed priorities' (to me) read as though they didn't have a contractual obligation to give the yards something to do.
spsun100001
New Member
I am unfamiliar with the TOBA so do stand to be corrected on that. I certainly was being sarcastic as I can't think of a worse way to spend money than on five patrol boats that duplicate capabilities we already have and lack the capability needed to undertake their stated mission of relieving frigates from lower order tasking. We could have had two/three genuinely useful vessels with an embarked Wildcat in a hangar and a 76mm gun and had money left over to preserve an SSM capability on our frigates and destroyers.
There was a deadline. How long would a new design have taken, vs. the tweaked old design we got? Could it have been ready in time to fit in the building gap?
Last I heard, we're not going to keep all the old Rivers, so it's not a duplication. We're getting slightly better ships & we'll get rid of the old ones.
Adding a 76mm gun would increase long-term costs. We'd have to add a whole new logistics chain. A permanently embarked Wildcat would greatly increase operating costs - & would we have enough of them?
I think we'd all like a hangar, & that's the chief criticism I have. The rest? The big mistakes were made elsewhere, not in the design of the new ships. Save your condemnation for the idiots who negotiated an agreement to keep down costs & maintain capability by building ships steadily then didn't keep up the orders.
Last I heard, we're not going to keep all the old Rivers, so it's not a duplication. We're getting slightly better ships & we'll get rid of the old ones.
Adding a 76mm gun would increase long-term costs. We'd have to add a whole new logistics chain. A permanently embarked Wildcat would greatly increase operating costs - & would we have enough of them?
I think we'd all like a hangar, & that's the chief criticism I have. The rest? The big mistakes were made elsewhere, not in the design of the new ships. Save your condemnation for the idiots who negotiated an agreement to keep down costs & maintain capability by building ships steadily then didn't keep up the orders.
I think the issue with the 'NEW' River class that the RN is getting, is that the design they paid for isn't what they wanted & now they're probably demanding to have it tweaked. This will no doubt mean additional costs & associated delays.
The powers that be in Whitehall need to realise that if they only pay for a mini, they can hardly expect a Rolls-Royce.
EVERY UK Naval vessel or RFA that has been built over the last 30 years, has had change built into them, either after contract has been signed, or just after they entered service, as the UK MoD 'tweaked' the designs to meet UOR's, or to update technology that provides enhanced capability.
Change is inevitable & the media jump on it as a news story, beating the shipbuilders, when the reason for it is primarily down to the end user demanding more...
SA
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Another bad day for the Type 45 class. Perhaps the actual costs to sort this are the real reason for the Type 26 delay.
Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer towed back to port two days after it sails
Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer towed back to port two days after it sails