The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

killallbullies said:
Hello,

If the planned CVF's were to be nuclear powered (fantasy) how would that affect the displacement, all other things being equal?
Click to expand...

CVF would probably be lighter or at worst the same weight as diesel powered CVF, by using Nuclear power.

Instead of the 6 generators, there'd only be a max of 2 (both for emergency power generation only). The space that would be used for the diesel fuel for the ship would probably converted directly for use for AVGAS, allowing the ship to remain on station longer, rather than having to either RAS or visit port for the A/C fuel.

The area occupied by the generators would be subsumed by various monitoring equipment, control & back up systems for the reactor, as well as the various forms of protection needed to protect the ship from it too.

Systems Adict
 
According to meretmarine, BAE Systems and BMT Defence Industries are teaming up with the Korean manufacturer Daewoo in order to achieve the MARS oil tanker program. The Aegir 18 design will displace about 18, 000 tons, and it will carry 16, 000 tons of fuel and 650 m3 of fresh water. The Royal Navy wants to procure 6 ships at a total cost of 1 billion euros. France could join the program.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=106991
 
Spacearrow99 said:
According to meretmarine, BAE Systems and BMT Defence Industries are teaming up with the Korean manufacturer Daewoo in order to achieve the MARS oil tanker program. The Aegir 18 design will displace about 18, 000 tons, and it will carry 16, 000 tons of fuel and 650 m3 of fresh water. The Royal Navy wants to procure 6 ships at a total cost of 1 billion euros. France could join the program.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=106991
Click to expand...

must be that the CVF/PA2 program must be working well if the French are keen to join another program lead by Britain.

also 6 1 billion seems like good value
 
harryriedl said:
must be that the CVF/PA2 program must be working well if the French are keen to join another program lead by Britain.
Click to expand...

France needs new PEs, their old ones are between 20 and 30 years old (and they need an extra bigger one for a PA2 CBG anyway). Think three or four new ones while keeping the two newest Durance, those in particular as command ships for ALINDIEN.

btw, i somehow doubt "will displace about 18, 000 tons, and it will carry 16, 000 tons of fuel". :rolleyes:

wtf is emplacement d'environ anyway? light displacement maybe?
 
kato said:
France needs new PEs, their old ones are between 20 and 30 years old (and they need an extra bigger one for a PA2 CBG anyway). Think three or four new ones while keeping the two newest Durance, those in particular as command ships for ALINDIEN.

btw, i somehow doubt "will displace about 18, 000 tons, and it will carry 16, 000 tons of fuel". :rolleyes:

wtf is emplacement d'environ anyway? light displacement maybe?
Click to expand...

"déplacement d'environ 18000 ..." = "displacement of about . . ."
Mistranslation from English to French, I think. The figure 18000 tons refers to deadweight tonnage, not displacement, according to the designers Aegir factsheet (with pictures). Designations are Aegir nn where nn = dwt in thousands.

Full load displacement would be a lot more.
 
swerve said:
Full load displacement would be a lot more.
Click to expand...

Not that much more. Could probably do it in something like 28-30kt. Ok, that is a lot more - still smaller than the Waves though.

Are any current RFA oilers double-hulled?
(requirement for any future tankers in the EU!)
 
windscorpion said:
I don't know if anyone has heard of the issues surrounding "fogbank" and the refurbishment of Trident warheads...

http://technology.newscientist.com/...t-missiles-delayed-by-mystery-ingredient.html

Can someone just clarify for me, are they intending to refurbish the warheads for use on the next generation of SSBNs or the current?
Click to expand...

I don't think the UK uses the warhead that the article seems to be talking about, we use our own. Even if we did use it I can't imagine that a technical problem today will have much impact on a planned replacement program due to delivery weapons for deployment from 2024.

WillS
 
With the reduction in the number of escort ships in the navy I was thinking about cheap ways to increase the number of escorts. I thought the navy could build a class of uprated HMS Clyde's, Apparently it was considered after the reduction in escort numbers to improve Clyde's communications, sensors, and armament and install a basic command system, Would a class of ship like this help to fill the gaps left by the reduced Frigate force. I can’t see it happening though but i think they would make an excellent addition to the navy.
 
davros said:
With the reduction in the number of escort ships in the navy I was thinking about cheap ways to increase the number of escorts. I thought the navy could build a class of uprated HMS Clyde's, Apparently it was considered after the reduction in escort numbers to improve Clyde's communications, sensors, and armament and install a basic command system, Would a class of ship like this help to fill the gaps left by the reduced Frigate force. I can’t see it happening though but i think they would make an excellent addition to the navy.
Click to expand...

Look up the FSC & C1/C2/C3 debates, earlier in this thread. You're talking about one of the options for C3.
 
Change of topic - The MOD have announced final trials of the new UK/France/Norway funded submarine rescue system. The new system will be based out of Faslane on the Clyde and maintained at 12 hours' notice to mobilise. One assumes this will also be available to support other Nato submarine operators in an emergency?

The old system will go into private hands and be available on a retainer basis to Navies who do not operate a dedicated rescue capability. I understand the Singapore Navy have signed off already.
 
It will be interesting to see the make-up of the navy over the next few decades. There is little doubt theat in general terms "navy" is the force with the greatest potential for power projection today and should be funded accordingly.

I think that the make-up of the RN will depend greatly on developments in three major geopolitical spheres;

1 - China's policy re Taiwan (east of Suez!!!)
2 - Russia's potential re-emergence
3 - The war on terror.

The royal Navy will re-equip i think based on how they percieve these potential threats panning out, especially the FSC project.

For example, in patrolling around Iraq, the "C3" type of ship would come in handy, especially against small motorized craft. Being able to patrol this threat, fighting off Iranians(!) and provide some shore support is vital. Hopefully this will be reflected in the make up of the ship.

For Russia and China, a true blue water combatant is required - both China and Russia will have or already have capable warhips and the RN should have the ability to handle them - at least for deterrant value. This is where I think the "C1" requirement lies. A powerful cruiser type vessel (stretched 45?) able to operate a couple of helecopters, defend its self from air, surface and subsurface threats from afar (Aster 15,30 with Harpoon and Tomahawk) allowing other ships to do their job, or prevent hostile ships from doing their own.

The C2 seems unusual. I think a Type 45 hull may be a bit too big, but for commonimity it might make sense in terms of costing and flexibility for updating in the future. Of course size is relativly cheap when compared to systems, and allows greater crew accomodation (nice for recruiting!) and space for re fitters/servicing marines and updating/adding weaponry. However, aside from flag waving and/or support of low intensity operations i cannot foresee a significant role for such a ship unless fitted with Tomahawk?

(nearly) a first post - hopefully provoke some debate. Andrew
 
davros said:
With the reduction in the number of escort ships in the navy I was thinking about cheap ways to increase the number of escorts. I thought the navy could build a class of uprated HMS Clyde's, Apparently it was considered after the reduction in escort numbers to improve Clyde's communications, sensors, and armament and install a basic command system, Would a class of ship like this help to fill the gaps left by the reduced Frigate force. I can’t see it happening though but i think they would make an excellent addition to the navy.
Click to expand...

Nice thought.

The Clyde's would "look very similar" to the F2000 design in some respects, especially WRT the "upgrades" your discussing.

85 - 95m long,
Main gun (BAE (Bofors 57mm) / Oto 76mm Super rapid), with a pair of 30mm "auxiliaries" for self defense.
VLS system, with Trackers,
Integrated command system
ESM/ECM system
Integrated Comms System, with "LINK" capability
Sonar
Exocet / Harpoon
Helicopter facilities (with / without hanger)
FLIR, with laser range finder & colour camera tracking system to be integrated with ALL guns
S & X band radars for Navigation & short range TI capabilities
E/F Band Radar for long range TI capabilities

These facilities, plus a few other nice to haves would give you FFG (Type 22/23 capability) in a corvette sized skin.

If UK govt wishes to spend the funds, I KNOW that there are 3 ships ready for purchase, if the price is right...

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nakhoda/


Systems Adict


PS any word on when HMS Daring is next going to sea ??
As I'll be "off-line" for a few weeks, I'm "away on Company Business"....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top