The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[PeterCrisp]

Thanks for the informative reply Systems Adict.
The only reason I asked was because the Carrier sets sail for trails today and when deployed they're often defended by a friendly Sub.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we don't cross-deck from T23 to T31e, then what do we do with the 13 sets of T23 kit (including Artisan & CAMM still being fitted) & three partial sets of new kit that we've bought? We're only getting eight T26s. Do we discard the eight spare sets we'll have, & buy something else instead? I can understand that for the late T26s (Artisan will be getting long in the tooth, unless heavily upgraded), but the first T31e is supposed be complete in five years.

Yes and both Artisan and SeaCeptor are new technologies, so deep sixing them would be:

1. A serious waste of treasure and resources and,
2. An act of stupidity.

Mind you having said that, it is pollies and the UK MOD we are talking about, so a Monty Pythonish type outcome would not surprise me, and no offence to Monty Python.

 

[StobieWan]

I must admit, I'd never considered that T31e wouldn't see a lot of cross decked kit from type 23 for all the reasons laid out - the price point is so tight that it seemed inherently to be required. Unless the build cycle for 31e doesn't match and they'd need kit sooner, I'd have thought that sensors and weapons would be obvious choices.

 

[beegee]

So, with the T31 tender back on and the Leander website up, I notice that the Babcock team 31 website has been taken down and there is no reference that I can find to the Arrowhead 140 on Babcock's website. Should anything be read into this?

When does the tender close?

 

[hauritz]

So, with the T31 tender back on and the Leander website up, I notice that the Babcock team 31 website has been taken down and there is no reference that I can find to the Arrowhead 140 on Babcock's website. Should anything be read into this?

When does the tender close?

Not surprising that the Arrowhead got canned. I think the restarting of the tender process was the government's way of saying that the tenderers needed to be a little more realistic about what they could deliver for that price.

I believe the decision is due sometime next year with an in-service date of 2023.

 

[StobieWan]

Not surprising that the Arrowhead got canned. I think the restarting of the tender process was the government's way of saying that the tenderers needed to be a little more realistic about what they could deliver for that price.

I believe the decision is due sometime next year with an in-service date of 2023.

If Arrowhead isn't in there, there's not a competition, which is the exact opposite of the stated reason for restarting the competition.

They may come back with Arrowhead 120 I guess but I'm seriously doubting the wisdom of the entire endeavour by now.

 

[ASSAIL]

They may come back with Arrowhead 120 I guess but I'm seriously doubting the wisdom of the entire endeavour by now.

So true, a small escort force given the huge task of protecting two high value carriers should never have been emasculated in this way.
The original T26 force was doable, even if the GP version was down on capability it still had potential to be upgraded.

The Arrowhead 140 was an acceptable frigate, anything less is either too vulnerable to TG ops or too flash for sovereignty patrols it’s a halfway cluster.

The OPVs are quite capable of flag waving in the possessions and anti piracy patrols elsewhere (good if they had a helo embarked). I can’t see the logic in over capitalising on the lower end roles thus denying resources where they are drastically needed, high end warfare.
We can only hope that the purse strings loosen to allow T31 to have the capability needed

 

[KiwiRob]

So, with the T31 tender back on and the Leander website up, I notice that the Babcock team 31 website has been taken down and there is no reference that I can find to the Arrowhead 140 on Babcock's website. Should anything be read into this?

When does the tender close?

Arrowhead has absolutely not been canned. If it has I’m wasting a shit load of my time working on my companies proposal for it.

 

[StobieWan]

Best of luck then because we're all rooting for the 140!

 

[swerve]

Arrowhead has absolutely not been canned. If it has I’m wasting a shit load of my time working on my companies proposal for it.

Which Arrowhead? 120 or 140?

I see that 120 is still on the Babcock website, complete with brochure.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The Brazilian Navy has release a photo spread of the former HMS Ocean, PHM Atlantico (A140) (link)

Seen here with the Foudre-class NDM Bahia (G40) (ex Marine Nationale Siroco) off her starboard quarter

 

[KiwiRob]

Which Arrowhead? 120 or 140?

I see that 120 is still on the Babcock website, complete with brochure.

140, all the specifications and discussion topics concern the 140, we've never been asked to do anything for the 120.

 

[swerve]

Thanks. That's interesting. Can you tell us anything about your company's proposal for it?

 

[beegee]

140, all the specifications and discussion topics concern the 140, we've never been asked to do anything for the 120.

That's awesome. I was worried when they took the site down and could no longer find any official reference to it.

I hope it wins the T31e tender and I hope NZ buys it for the ANZAC replacement. It's a serious frigate, not like that Leander canoe.

 

[ngatimozart]

That's awesome. I was worried when they took the site down and could no longer find any official reference to it.

I hope it wins the T31e tender and I hope NZ buys it for the ANZAC replacement. It's a serious frigate, not like that Leander canoe.

Trouble is our stupid pollies would probably go for that Leander waka. grrr

 

[Stampede]

Hello all

An article of interest on the BBC web site re the QE class carriers.
Maybe not new information for some, yet some good Pics and graphics to look at and ponder.
Reinforces the need to fund any defence force acquisition properly and do justice in crewing and providing all that is needed for a system of systems.
I trust Britain's carriers and all that is needed to make them function are funded without a detrimental effect across a balance UK defence force.

Early days.

The UK's giant aircraft carriers - BBC News

Regards S

 

[beegee]

I’m not sure that is true if the missiles under consideration are SM 2 Active, SM 6 or ESSM Block 2, although the CMS would almost certainly need modification; although that might be relatively minor.

If they don’t embark SAMs then 24 strike length seems more Mk 41 cells than needed for other purposes.

I'm moving this conversation from the NZ thread as it's OT... this is regarding possible SAM fitment in the Type 26 Mk41 VLS.

Adding a missile capability to a ship takes a heck of a lot more than modifying the CMS. You need the missile command and guidance electronics (usually a number of electronics cabinets). These interface with the CMS and pass target data to the missile, they also sometimes control launch sequencing.

And it doesn't matter if the missiles are active or not, you still need a datalink to guide them. If you launch a long range active missile, by the time it get's close enough to the target area to use it's onboard radar the target could be somewhere completely different. The datalink keeps the missile updated with the target's position as it transits (it also does other things, but that's the main one).

Unless the ship's configuration is very different from what's been shown publicly, I don't see any of the equipment needed for such missiles. I do see the MBDA Platform Datalink Terminals required for Sea Ceptor, but nothing else.

Also, as a side discussion, wouldn't the RN buying American SAMs be a major policy shift? The RN has always deployed Britsh/partially British AD missiles. Wouldn't it be strange to support two different missiles that have the same role in the same navy?

 

[John Fedup]

Depending on how the Brexit negotiations are finalized, there could be a new arrangement on how future missiles (and other major military kit) are developed. A messy divorce from the EU might see new defence partnerships emerge with non-EU partners, the obvious one being the US but Japan and Australia are possible as well.

 

[alexsa]

Depending on how the Brexit negotiations are finalized, there could be a new arrangement on how future missiles (and other major military kit) are developed. A messy divorce from the EU might see new defence partnerships emerge with non-EU partners, the obvious one being the US but Japan and Australia are possible as well.

Particularly relevant when you consider the Hunter Class will be built to fire the US missiles..... the difference being the systems. The difference is that the RN have the T45 to provide the anti air while the T26 is to cover ASW. This does not necessarily mean the T31e may not have some AAW capability beyond CeaCeptor ..... although at the price that seems unlikely.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm moving this conversation from the NZ thread as it's OT... this is regarding possible SAM fitment in the Type 26 Mk41 VLS.

Adding a missile capability to a ship takes a heck of a lot more than modifying the CMS. You need the missile command and guidance electronics (usually a number of electronics cabinets). These interface with the CMS and pass target data to the missile, they also sometimes control launch sequencing.

And it doesn't matter if the missiles are active or not, you still need a datalink to guide them. If you launch a long range active missile, by the time it get's close enough to the target area to use it's onboard radar the target could be somewhere completely different. The datalink keeps the missile updated with the target's position as it transits (it also does other things, but that's the main one).

Unless the ship's configuration is very different from what's been shown publicly, I don't see any of the equipment needed for such missiles. I do see the MBDA Platform Datalink Terminals required for Sea Ceptor, but nothing else.

Also, as a side discussion, wouldn't the RN buying American SAMs be a major policy shift? The RN has always deployed Britsh/partially British AD missiles. Wouldn't it be strange to support two different missiles that have the same role in the same navy?

There are quite a few things going on with potential to have a significant impact on the RN, as well as significant room for new things to develop or be developed.

One of the first is the continued and furthered expansion of offboard sensing systems and datalinks to provide a common operating picture. While the RN/RAF does not, to me knowledge, have plans to adopt or integrate CEC, there is a latent and increasing potential for assets other than a launching RN ship to detect targets or provide in-flight updates to missiles launched at a target.

Another is the potential value and importance of RN task forces once the UK resumes fixed-wing/carrier operations. The potential sensor footprint a RN carrier task force could easily cover hundreds of km's and possibly exceeding what the Type 45 DDG's can protect, given their numbers and the size/option ranges for missile loadouts. In that regard, the RN could easily find itself wanting more surface vessels able to aid with engaging long-ranged targets, and/or having the ability to carry out engagements at ranges longer than the RN currently is able to.

When one also looks at the potential Brexit impact coupled with current and future development of US and European weapons systems, I could easily see the UK starting to look more a US-sourced missiles/systems, or IMO even more likely, looking at more joint UK-US development of such systems. The UK already has a degree of air defence missile capability overlap between Sea Ceptor and Aster 15, but AFAIK there is no version of Aster 30 in development which is intended to provide the sort of performance found in SM-6. I could easily see the UK finding itself in a position where it is forced to change some of the acquisition policies because what is needed is just not available from what had been traditional sources for the UK.