The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

They're currently having Type 23s refitted with new CMS, TRS-4D radars, Sea Ceptor, etc. They've done that sort of thing before: fitting new systems to old ships. I think they're unlikely to go for expensive new ships such as Type 26, but a relatively cheap basic ship such as Type 31 with new, good quality, but not top of the line systems, such as those they're modernising the T23s with, seems very possible.

All speculation, though.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

A new Royal Navy surveillance ship is to be built to protect communication undersea cables.

New Royal Navy ship to protect 'critical' undersea cables

UK intelligence recently warned of Russian submarines "aggressively operating" near Atlantic cables.

www.bbc.com

A logic decision. Im quite sure other navies also have Multi Role Ocean Surveillance ships to protect their cables.

The First Sea lord actually already mentioned it in this video in January this year (around 6:11).

It is unclear yet if the design is based on the HMS Scott or Echo class Surveillance Ships or a complete new design.

 

[Systems Adict]

Still trying to make sense of it all - but as a help - Here's a few articles to review...

UK 2021 SDR...

Defence review will forge a growing Navy with expanding horizons

UK Integrated Review 2021

ttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969402/The_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf

The Type 32 Frigate – What do we know?

UK announces new Type 83 Destroyer

I, like many, am keen to see more info about Type 32 & Type 83 (The T4X / Type 45 replacements)

I found this in the British Army Forum...

Defence Secretary oral statement on the Defence Command Paper

" The Royal Navy

• we have also been a maritime nation for many many centuries and it is vital that we have a navy that is both global and powerful.
• the Royal Navy – because of our investment in the Type 26, Type 31, and Type 32 – will by the start of the next decade have over twenty Frigates and Destroyers.
• we will also commission a new Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship which will protect the integrity of the UK’s Maritime Zones and undersea Critical National Infrastructure.
• we will deploy new automated mine hunting systems, which will replace the Sandown and Hunt classes as they retire through the decade.
• the interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon, will replace the Harpoon missile and we will upgrade the Air Defence weapon systems on our Type 45s to better protect them from new threats.
• we will invest further to improve the availability of our submarine fleet and start development of the next generation of subsea systems for the 2040s.
• the Royal Marines will develop from being amphibious infantry held at readiness, to a forward-based, highly capable maritime ‘Future Commando Force’, further enabled by the conversion of a Bay Class landing ship to enable Littoral Strike. "

Bay class to be converted to deliver ‘lethal littoral strike capability’

A LOT to mull over / read thru / understand....


SA

 

[JohnJT]

Here's a video from First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin. This all sounds very positive for the RN. More F-35s and greater investment in submarines and high tech kit.

What the 2021 Integrated Review means to the Royal Navy ? - Naval News

An expanding Navy, armed with the latest weaponry, equipped with the latest tech, deployed more around the world to meet the UK’s expanding horizons. That is what the 2021 Integrated Review means to the Royal Navy.

www.navalnews.com

 

[John Newman]

Here's a video from First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin. This all sounds very positive for the RN. More F-35s and greater investment in submarines and high tech kit.

What the 2021 Integrated Review means to the Royal Navy ? - Naval News

An expanding Navy, armed with the latest weaponry, equipped with the latest tech, deployed more around the world to meet the UK’s expanding horizons. That is what the 2021 Integrated Review means to the Royal Navy.

www.navalnews.com

I wouldn’t be getting too excited by the statement of ‘more’ F-35, the statement of ‘more’ needs clarification.

Originally the UK Government committed to procuring 138 F-35B, but as at today, they have only ordered 48 aircraft, that is still 90 aircraft short of the original plan.

Those 48 are due to all be in service by around 2023, the ‘more’ that’s been mentioned appears to be an increase to 60 or 72, but still no firm commitment to go to the original planned 138 airframes.

As for submarines, there is no plan to increase the overall number of SSBNs or SSNs.

The mention in the video of the ‘two’ T class subs is that the last two will have their service lives extended, briefly.

The Defence Command Paper and the future of the Royal Navy | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Cheers,

 

[OldTex]

the Royal Marines will develop from being amphibious infantry held at readiness, to a forward-based, highly capable maritime ‘Future Commando Force’, further enabled by the conversion of a Bay Class landing ship to enable Littoral Strike. "

IMHO this small statement, combined with the proposal to acquire up to 6 Multi-Role Support Ships, could be pointing to the future scrapping of HMSs Bulwark, Albion and the Bay Class LSDs. The single Bay Class LSD to be converted into a prototype 'Littoral Strike Ship' would, in all likelihood be used to develop and refine the requirements for the future LSSs. Once the LSSs start to enter service (in an unknown number at this stage) the modified Bay Class would also be scrapped.

 

[StobieWan]

IMHO this small statement, combined with the proposal to acquire up to 6 Multi-Role Support Ships, could be pointing to the future scrapping of HMSs Bulwark, Albion and the Bay Class LSDs. The single Bay Class LSD to be converted into a prototype 'Littoral Strike Ship' would, in all likelihood be used to develop and refine the requirements for the future LSSs. Once the LSSs start to enter service (in an unknown number at this stage) the modified Bay Class would also be scrapped.

well, the direction appears to be that the RMC won't be fielded as a traditional unit with it's own organic support and wouldn't be available to do amphib landings in future, so at that point, the rest of the infrastructure can go away as well seems to be the thinking.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Those 48 are due to all be in service by around 2023, the ‘more’ that’s been mentioned appears to be an increase to 60 or 72, but still no firm commitment to go to the original planned 138 airframes.

I don't think that the 138 will be ordered for the foreseeable future. Rather, as you mentioned, there will be a follow-on order. Whether that brings the total up to 60-72 or more, I expect that the number will be prioritised for the Royal Navy if the carrier needs to deploy in anger. The RAF wouldn't really be able to object unless there was an ongoing conflict it needed F-35s.

As for submarines, there is no plan to increase the overall number of SSBNs or SSNs. The mention in the video of the ‘two’ T class subs is that the last two will have their service lives extended, briefly.

I don't think there's a need for more than 4 SSBNs, and hopefully there won't be cuts to that final number. As for the SSNs, realistically the 7 Astutes was all the Royal Navy was going to get. The fact 2 Trafalgars are being kept on to ensure SSN numbers don't fall temporarily is the most anyone could hope for.

Still trying to make sense of it all - but as a help - Here's a few articles to review...

" The Royal Navy

• the interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon, will replace the Harpoon missile and we will upgrade the Air Defence weapon systems on our Type 45s to better protect them from new threats.

I'm really interested to see what I-SSGW will be. I think all the options on the table - RBS-15 mk3/4, NSM and Exocet block 3c - are decent. If the RBS-15 mk4 was available in time that might be the best out of the three.

Plus the First Sea Lord mentioned land attack capabilities for the surface fleet. It's unknown if he meant Spear 3 launched from F-35s or if it means the Type 26s will get VLS land-attack missile. We may not know for another year or two until after HMS Glasgow is launched.

 

[Redlands18]

I don't think that the 138 will be ordered for the foreseeable future. Rather, as you mentioned, there will be a follow-on order. Whether that brings the total up to 60-72 or more, I expect that the number will be prioritised for the Royal Navy if the carrier needs to deploy in anger. The RAF wouldn't really be able to object unless there was an ongoing conflict it needed F-35s.



I don't think there's a need for more than 4 SSBNs, and hopefully there won't be cuts to that final number. As for the SSNs, realistically the 7 Astutes was all the Royal Navy was going to get. The fact 2 Trafalgars are being kept on to ensure SSN numbers don't fall temporarily is the most anyone could hope for.


I'm really interested to see what I-SSGW will be. I think all the options on the table - RBS-15 mk3/4, NSM and Exocet block 3c - are decent. If the RBS-15 mk4 was available in time that might be the best out of the three.

Plus the First Sea Lord mentioned land attack capabilities for the surface fleet. It's unknown if he meant Spear 3 launched from F-35s or if it means the Type 26s will get VLS land-attack missile. We may not know for another year or two until after HMS Glasgow is launched.

If you are going to cut SSBN numbers, you just as well cut all 4 as that is the minimum number required to maintain a 24/7 365d a year patrol. You can’t have a deterrence some of the time.

 

[StobieWan]

If you are going to cut SSBN numbers, you just as well cut all 4 as that is the minimum number required to maintain a 24/7 365d a year patrol. You can’t have a deterrence some of the time.

Absolutely - either do CASD or chop the entire capability - you'd probably to have then seriously consider if the RN has a future as a nuclear powered sub fleet, and if so, order a batch II Astute to keep the yard in business. Cutting numbers from the bomber force is like cutting thumbs off one hand - either you want a thumb in which case, put the knife down, or you don't.

 

[John Fedup]

An Astute block 2 or perhaps a Dreadnaught SSGN instead of a boomer to keep the nuclear naval construction industry viable if the UK wants to get out of the nuclear deterrent business. Would be interested in any cost savings going from a Dreadnaught SSBN to SSGN?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If you are going to cut SSBN numbers

Who said anything about cutting numbers? John Newman said "no plan to increase" numbers. We don't need more SSBNs, four is sufficient for the UK's requirements.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Plus the First Sea Lord mentioned land attack capabilities for the surface fleet. It's unknown if he meant Spear 3 launched from F-35s or if it means the Type 26s will get VLS land-attack missile. We may not know for another year or two until after HMS Glasgow is launched.

I think its highly likely that the UK will order the latest TLAM with marine/land strike capability. With upgrades possibly for the existing sub launch TLAM. I do not expect a large order of new missiles, but that is not unexpected.

 

[swerve]

IMHO this small statement, combined with the proposal to acquire up to 6 Multi-Role Support Ships, could be pointing to the future scrapping of HMSs Bulwark, Albion and the Bay Class LSDs. The single Bay Class LSD to be converted into a prototype 'Littoral Strike Ship' would, in all likelihood be used to develop and refine the requirements for the future LSSs. Once the LSSs start to enter service (in an unknown number at this stage) the modified Bay Class would also be scrapped.

Or sold on. There are countries such as Brazil which could be interested in them as replacements for much older ships.

 

[John Fedup]

This article on Crowsnest seems to indicate light at the end of the tunnel, finally. Apparently 3 ASaC equipped Merlins will be available for QE’s Pacific deployment.

First Crowsnest-equipped airborne surveillance and control helicopter goes into service with the Royal Navy | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[RJH_APAC]

Or sold on. There are countries such as Brazil which could be interested in them as replacements for much older ships.

I've just joined the forum, but been reading the posts as a casual observer for sometime. There is some logic in the UK’s recent move to introduce MRSS/LSS ships.

The RM have decided to return to their WWII roots, primary focus being on strategic raiding. They recently tested the theory against the USMC and the results and feedback was very encouraging. This change of direction is partially driven by the need to focus on peer-to-peer conflict. The RN/RM leadership know all too well, China, and to a lesser degree Russia, have the ability, means and intent to target amphibious ready groups hundreds of kilometres offshore, way before they reach the disembarkation point for embarked LCs, LCACs and lift. This growing clear and present danger has forced a change in thinking from delivering a concentrated heavy punch against a narrow beachhead (vulnerable to sea/area denial weapons) to one built around strategic raiding operations spread across a wide front deployed from dispersed assets. This change in doctrine will be supported by a marked increase in AI and autonomous system use to deliver pain from afar and a bigger bang for your buck. The concept doesn’t stop the Future Commando Force integrating with a traditional USMC ARG ‘full pedal to metal’ beach assault. They would simply look to deploy in advance (alongside MARSOC) or go for high value targets behind the lines or on the beachhead flanks (as they once did in the Med, Aegean and Normandy D-Day campaigns in WWII).

From what I understand the plan is to forward deploy a T32 + Multi Role Support Ships / Littoral Strike Ship (final designation of new vessel TBD) + Commando element in Gib, Oman and APAC (Singapore or Brunei). The embarked Commando’s would deploy covertly by raiding craft or helicopter and then leverage of future AI to disrupt and deny. The T32 will provide force protection and act as a mothership hosting additional autonomous systems not carried by the littoral ship. Again, back to their Commando roots, sneak ashore, rather than kick the door in with a loud bang. The difference between this new approach and say the SBS role, is the Commando’s will look to infiltrate in larger numbers with heavier support weapons (mortars, Extractor NLOS, MANPADS, Switchblade 300 (recent purchase)). Similar to the SFSG role (1 Para++), but in a littoral setting.

The decision to buy up to six littoral ships over say two Canberra/Mistral Classes is about quantity/cost and sits well with the decision to forward deploy assets for the long haul, not just on annual fly the flag cruises/exercises with allies. The other reason is vessel loss impact; losing one of six available hulls is less impactful on operational planning & tempo than losing one of say just two available hulls (quantity over quality does make sense sometimes). We all know the UK can’t afford six Canberra/Mistral Classes, nor can they crew them, so the RN is opting for six less sophisticated platforms that will nevertheless be a step-up from a converted merchant ship and be capable of providing a persistent global presence (crew rotation model). The added bonus of being forward deployed is these versatile packets will be available at much shorter notice for humanitarian work and anti-piracy/terrorism missions, so plenty of soft power diplomacy and grey area missions against asymmetrical threats. If you look at the deteriorating situation in both West and East Africa for example, these forward deployed maritime assets could be kept very busy (Gulf of Guinea or positioned off Mozambique) working hand in glove with one of the new forward deployed Ranger Battalions posted out to the upgraded BATUK facility in Kenya. For the first time since the 70’s, joining the RM/RN/Army will mean living and working overseas for extended periods in very culturally different geographical locations.

The littoral strike package concept will be further tested aboard a refurbished Bay with a second separate group deployed aboard an Albion class. The results of which will determine what the new littoral ships will eventually look like.

 

[Volkodav]

I've just joined the forum, but been reading the posts as a casual observer for sometime. There is some logic in the UK’s recent move to introduce MRSS/LSS ships.

The RM have decided to return to their WWII roots, primary focus being on strategic raiding. They recently tested the theory against the USMC and the results and feedback was very encouraging. This change of direction is partially driven by the need to focus on peer-to-peer conflict. The RN/RM leadership know all too well, China, and to a lesser degree Russia, have the ability, means and intent to target amphibious ready groups hundreds of kilometres offshore, way before they reach the disembarkation point for embarked LCs, LCACs and lift. This growing clear and present danger has forced a change in thinking from delivering a concentrated heavy punch against a narrow beachhead (vulnerable to sea/area denial weapons) to one built around strategic raiding operations spread across a wide front deployed from dispersed assets. This change in doctrine will be supported by a marked increase in AI and autonomous system use to deliver pain from afar and a bigger bang for your buck. The concept doesn’t stop the Future Commando Force integrating with a traditional USMC ARG ‘full pedal to metal’ beach assault. They would simply look to deploy in advance (alongside MARSOC) or go for high value targets behind the lines or on the beachhead flanks (as they once did in the Med, Aegean and Normandy D-Day campaigns in WWII).

From what I understand the plan is to forward deploy a T32 + Multi Role Support Ships / Littoral Strike Ship (final designation of new vessel TBD) + Commando element in Gib, Oman and APAC (Singapore or Brunei). The embarked Commando’s would deploy covertly by raiding craft or helicopter and then leverage of future AI to disrupt and deny. The T32 will provide force protection and act as a mothership hosting additional autonomous systems not carried by the littoral ship. Again, back to their Commando roots, sneak ashore, rather than kick the door in with a loud bang. The difference between this new approach and say the SBS role, is the Commando’s will look to infiltrate in larger numbers with heavier support weapons (mortars, Extractor NLOS, MANPADS, Switchblade 300 (recent purchase)). Similar to the SFSG role (1 Para++), but in a littoral setting.

The decision to buy up to six littoral ships over say two Canberra/Mistral Classes is about quantity/cost and sits well with the decision to forward deploy assets for the long haul, not just on annual fly the flag cruises/exercises with allies. The other reason is vessel loss impact; losing one of six available hulls is less impactful on operational planning & tempo than losing one of say just two available hulls (quantity over quality does make sense sometimes). We all know the UK can’t afford six Canberra/Mistral Classes, nor can they crew them, so the RN is opting for six less sophisticated platforms that will nevertheless be a step-up from a converted merchant ship and be capable of providing a persistent global presence (crew rotation model). The added bonus of being forward deployed is these versatile packets will be available at much shorter notice for humanitarian work and anti-piracy/terrorism missions, so plenty of soft power diplomacy and grey area missions against asymmetrical threats. If you look at the deteriorating situation in both West and East Africa for example, these forward deployed maritime assets could be kept very busy (Gulf of Guinea or positioned off Mozambique) working hand in glove with one of the new forward deployed Ranger Battalions posted out to the upgraded BATUK facility in Kenya. For the first time since the 70’s, joining the RM/RN/Army will mean living and working overseas for extended periods in very culturally different geographical locations.

The littoral strike package concept will be further tested aboard a refurbished Bay with a second separate group deployed aboard an Albion class. The results of which will determine what the new littoral ships will eventually look like.

Mass amphibious assaults was ironically an army thing with marines providing specialist support, switching back to raiding makes sense.

That said, in this day and age heavy equipment can be more easily deployed than ever, so why not beef up raiding forces with armour? Its more survivable and reliable than ever before so why not use it to provide a complete over match during the raid then bug out before the enemy can respond.

 

[RJH_APAC]

Mass amphibious assaults was ironically an army thing with marines providing specialist support, switching back to raiding makes sense.

That said, in this day and age heavy equipment can be more easily deployed than ever, so why not beef up raiding forces with armour? Its more survivable and reliable than ever before so why not use it to provide a complete over match during the raid then bug out before the enemy can respond.

You still have to get the armour to the beachhead in numbers that make a difference. China's plan is to make that impossible by using sea/area denial weapons to destroy amphibious fleets before they can disembark their contents. The UK has consciously decided to mitigate this risk by planning to use smaller, widely dispersed specialist units inserted covertly and then bring in fires from afar (deployed from the carriers and/or autonomous platforms). There's no right or wrong answer here, it's simply a change of approach driven by what they see as the evolving peer on peer threat. Remember, the USMC has decided to ditch its tanks too and move to a lighter, more nimble set-up.

Another factor is casualty tolerance, the West has a very, very low casualty tolerance level when compared to China or Russia. The West doesn't control the narrative because they accept a free press. China and Russia can and do control what the public thinks/reads/sees, they can spin loss of life differently without being challenged, play the patriot and race card. So, losing a small team of guys operating behind the lines will be received very differently in the West to losing a carrier or amphibious vessel with a 1000 souls onboard. The latter will likely bring the government down. My point here is the typical Western Government would lose a lot less sleep deploying smaller Commando style units than putting their pride and joy capital ship in an area where the chance of it being hit by sophisticated area/sea denial weapon exceeds 50%.

The Future Commando Force will also be of more use when dealing with asymmetrical or grey area conflict. Something the Russian's are masters at. What the Russian's have/are achieving has not been lost on RM's recent thinking and change of direction, including embracing disinformation as a potent propaganda tool.

 

[Volkodav]

You still have to get the armour to the beachhead in numbers that make a difference. China's plan is to make that impossible by using sea/area denial weapons to destroy amphibious fleets before they can disembark their contents. The UK has very consciously decided to mitigate this risk by planning to use smaller, widely dispersed specialist units to insert covertly and bring in fires from afar (deployed from the carriers and/or autonomous platforms). There's no right or wrong answer here, it's simply a change of approach driven by what they see as the evolving peer on peer threat. Remember, the USMC has decided to ditch its tanks too and move to a lighter, more nimble set-up.

Another factor is casualty tolerance, the West has a very, very low casualty tolerance level when compared to China or Russia. The West doesn't control the narrative because they accept a free press. China and Russia can and do control what the public thinks/reads/sees, they can spin loss of life differently without being challenged, play the patriot and race card. So, losing a small team of guys operating behind the lines will be received very differently in the West to losing a carrier or amphibious vessel with a 1000 souls onboard. The latter will likely bring the government down. My point here is the typical Western Government would lose a lot less sleep deploying smaller Commando style units than putting their pride and joy capital ship in an area where the chance of it being hit by sophisticated area/sea denial weapon exceeds 50%.

The Future Commando Force will also be of more use when dealing with asymmetrical, grey area conflict. Something the Russian's are masters at. What the Russian's have/are achieving has not been lost on RM's recent thinking and change of direction, including embracing disinformation as potent propaganda tool.

Not talking about a mass assault, simply pointing out that if you are using an LCM, LCU, or LCAC, you can land a tank, AEV AIFV or LAV with your raiding party and deliver tactical over match. Said armoured vehicle can withdraw with the raiding force.

 

[RJH_APAC]

Not talking about a mass assault, simply pointing out that if you are using an LCM, LCU, or LCAC, you can land a tank, AEV AIFV or LAV with your raiding party and deliver tactical over match. Said armoured vehicle can withdraw with the raiding force.

Agreed, however, I’m trying to think of an example where the use of such a small concentration of armour has ever been used in an amphibious setting. I would have thought you’d be looking at committing at least a squadron for mutual support. If that’s not possible, then you might be better off bolstering your ATGM teams instead or investing in Switchblade 600 (you’d achieve a mission kill on enemy armour with that and maintain a low profile).

There’s a YouTube video on Switchblade 600. Can be set up in ten minutes. UK is already buying the 300.

Video link added by Moderator.