The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

John Fedup said:
Does the Type 26 actually handle two helicopters without scarifying the multi-mission module?
Click to expand...
I believe that it is essentially the hanger is attached directly to the mission bay allowing two helicopters to be stored in tandem. It can even fit one extremely large helicopter such as the chinook.

Without utilising the mission bay it is just limited to one helicopter.
 
ASSAIL said:
I have possibly missed something her about the T45 PIP.
HMSDefender has returned to sea after 18 months with two new gas turbines? No mention oh DGs.
Has she completed PIP yet or was this another failure of which I was unaware.
The report states she has upgraded Warfare capability, is there any news of what changes/additions were made?

Royal Navy destroyer HMS Defender tests new turbines after 18-month refit
Click to expand...

I suspect new diesels were fitted not new GTs. In all the reading I have done on the IEP system for the Darling class, I have never seen any mention of replacing the GTs, only the DGs. There has been some stuff on upgrading the recuperation system for the GTs, not sure what exactly.
 
John Fedup said:
I suspect new diesels were fitted not new GTs. In all the reading I have done on the IEP system for the Darling class, I have never seen any mention of replacing the GTs, only the DGs. There has been some stuff on upgrading the recuperation system for the GTs, not sure what exactly.
Click to expand...

Not so, a number of links discuss new turbines, my link is from "Naval today"

And this from the RN web site, this was not part of the PIP apparently, just another saga with propulsion

HMS Defender returns to Portsmouth | Royal Navy
 
Last edited:
Something is wrong here. The PIP mentions improved generating capacity with larger diesels. Earlier reports indicated replacing the GTs
was not practical. Also, the GTs are not the problem, it is intercooler/recuperation component. I haven't seen any notice of a major GT order for RR other than MT-30s for the T26 program. If Defender actually got new turbines, where is the turbine order for Darling, Dragon et al.? This link on the same subject makes no mention of new turbines.

HMS Defender returns to Portsmouth
 
There's definitely some confusion in the article there - Project Napier was all about additional generating power - with some fixes to the existing GT's - she may have had her GT's swapped out for other WR21's under some maintenance agreement I guess?
 
hauritz said:
I believe that it is essentially the hanger is attached directly to the mission bay allowing two helicopters to be stored in tandem. It can even fit one extremely large helicopter such as the chinook.

Without utilising the mission bay it is just limited to one helicopter.
Click to expand...

Says who ???

I believe the hangar design is a comparable size & shape with T45 & if a T45 can take x2 Lynx / Wildcat, the T26 will be able to do similar...
 
He - Beedall - can't spell Lightning instead LIGHTENING? [under BAE 2002 Catobar image & twice in a subsequent paragraph & twice in third last paragraph & once in last paragraph] Must have been an editing error which does not say much at this late stage. What might have been gets old when WHAT THEY HAVE is DAMN Marvellous.
 
Last edited:
SpazSinbad said:
He - Beedall - can't spell Lightning instead LIGHTENING? [under BAE 2002 Catobar image & twice in a subsequent paragraph & twice in third last paragraph & once in last paragraph] Must have been an editing error which does not say much at this late stage. What might have been gets old when WHAT THEY HAVE is DAMN Marvellous.
Click to expand...


Its with the benefit of hindsight he's not questioning the carriers capability themselves, if you knew that building the two current carriers was going to cripple the escort fleet numbers as well as reduce the overall capability less T26, would you still build them or gone with an updated invincible design?
 
Smaller carriers might have have saved some money but I think the bigger issue is the Dreadnought class boomers. Is the nuclear deterrent (which hopefully is never required) worth the cost and the resulting erosion of the RN surface fleet capability? Without this expediture, more T26s and T45s could be available to protect the new carriers and money would be available for new amphibious ships too. A couple more Astutes with nuclear cruise missiles might be possible if some kind of nuclear deterrent is really deemed essential.

The flip side was no carriers and use the money for more subs and T26s.
 
John Fedup said:
Smaller carriers might have have saved some money but I think the bigger issue is the Dreadnought class boomers. Is the nuclear deterrent (which hopefully is never required) worth the cost and the resulting erosion of the RN surface fleet capability? Without this expediture, more T26s and T45s could be available to protect the new carriers and money would be available for new amphibious ships too. A couple more Astutes with nuclear cruise missiles might be possible if some kind of nuclear deterrent is really deemed essential.

The flip side was no carriers and use the money for more subs and T26s.
Click to expand...

In terms of deterrent, cruise missiles are not an option - there's no nuclear armed cruise missile available, we have no warhead to fit such a weapon and finally, they have much more restrictive firing envelopes than Trident - either we do CASD with Trident or give up on nuclear deterrence.

In response to the question should we have developed a smaller set of carriers, well, I'd say it's easier to order more escorts in the future than bigger carriers - steel is cheap, air is free and picking a large, roomy design brings a lot of benefits to the table.

There's a lot that could have been done differently, and I'd start with "don't get involved in a counter insurgency war in a land locked country with the attendant expense of maintaining 10,000 troops via an air bridge for a decade" - that would probably have helped a bit :)
 
t68 said:
Its with the benefit of hindsight he's not questioning the carriers capability themselves, if you knew that building the two current carriers was going to cripple the escort fleet numbers as well as reduce the overall capability less T26, would you still build them or gone with an updated invincible design?
Click to expand...
I would have been tempted to go with the USS America design rather than an updated Invincible. The America might have shaved a couple of billion off the cost of the project and is still quite a substantially sized ship. You might even be to afford a third or even fourth vessel to replace the Bulwark and Albion.
 
StobieWan said:
There's a lot that could have been done differently, and I'd start with "don't get involved in a counter insurgency war in a land locked country with the attendant expense of maintaining 10,000 troops via an air bridge for a decade" - that would probably have helped a bit :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree and it is not only the UK that pi$$ed away a fortune on Afghanistan and for what. It is still is and probably will always be what Trump labeled it as.
 
hauritz said:
I would have been tempted to go with the USS America design rather than an updated Invincible. The America might have shaved a couple of billion off the cost of the project and is still quite a substantially sized ship. You might even be to afford a third or even fourth vessel to replace the Bulwark and Albion.
Click to expand...
How is the QE 'an updated Invincible'? Three times the tonnage, not one part the same . . .

No chance of a fourth, or even third, America. The basic crew's bigger than QE's, & the cost is about 75% of QE. Also, the aviation capability is much less. It's less in proportion to tonnage, in a ship of two-thirds the tonnage. So, we'd end up with less of everything except troop carrying capacity (which we're not short of) or having to spend more for a third ship, & desperately scraping around trying to crew it.

What we should have done, of course, was not stretch out the build to push spending into the future (blame Gordon Brown) at the cost of greater spending overall, & not had that diversion into cat & trap without first checking what 'adaptable design' actually meant (blame Liam Fox). That would have saved your couple of billion
 
swerve said:
What we should have done, of course, was not stretch out the build to push spending into the future (blame Gordon Brown) at the cost of greater spending overall, & not had that diversion into cat & trap without first checking what 'adaptable design' actually meant (blame Liam Fox). That would have saved your couple of billion
Click to expand...

That's the bit most armchair experts and revisionists don't get, stretching programs (as well as cutting numbers) reduces efficiency and drives up cost. It's not just the UK that experiences this but any nation that makes the same sort of short term trade off's. The RN could quite possibly have had both carriers, twelve Type 45s (half of which could have been a fully sorted batch II) , a dozen type 26 and a dozen Astutes for the same money as their much smaller fleet is costing them, had they been more consistent with their ordering and build cycles.
 
As long as you have pollies shifting money around to best enhance their re-election chances at the expense of needed recapitalization projects (defence or otherwise), these inefficiencies will continue. The whining electorates in many Western nations allow pollies to do this without penalty.
 
swerve said:
How is the QE 'an updated Invincible'? Three times the tonnage, not one part the same . . .

No chance of a fourth, or even third, America. The basic crew's bigger than QE's, & the cost is about 75% of QE. Also, the aviation capability is much less. It's less in proportion to tonnage, in a ship of two-thirds the tonnage. So, we'd end up with less of everything except troop carrying capacity (which we're not short of) or having to spend more for a third ship, & desperately scraping around trying to crew it.

What we should have done, of course, was not stretch out the build to push spending into the future (blame Gordon Brown) at the cost of greater spending overall, & not had that diversion into cat & trap without first checking what 'adaptable design' actually meant (blame Liam Fox). That would have saved your couple of billion
Click to expand...


Indeed - and on that note, we could have had an eighth Astute if they'd paid the yard to build it instead of paying them not to build it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top