The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Super Nimrod]

Yes good point. The other thing I haven't considered which may be a factor, is would the RN prefer a Panamax design ? If so then her beam is restricted to 106 feet which would rule out a CVF derivative and move things more in favour of a design similar to BPE or Wasp.

 

[Miles]

I can't see the RN going to war without its CVF's, therefore I don't see the need for an Ocean replacement to be able to go through the canals.

I just need to clarify something, what I am mainly proposing is that the Ocean replcement should be large, and possibly use the CVF design as a starting basis. Take out a lot of the wriglys etc and it should be cheaper. In which case why go for something small when for not much more you can go for something big? IF you have loads of void spaces (which could be accessed in the future) then so what? At least yo would have a massive flight deck and hangar.

 

[Systems Adict]

I can't see the RN going to war without its CVF's, therefore I don't see the need for an Ocean replacement to be able to go through the canals.

Why ?? :lam

While I appreciate that CVF will be in a CBG, with sub(s), X-amount T-45's, X-amount T-23's + Albion or Bulwark, 1 or 2 LSD(A)'s & possibly one of the Wave class oilers, why wouldn't Ocean be included ?

If the RN was to "go to war" (which is doubtful, as the RN judges each developing scenario on it's own merits), it would take all assets it needs to do the job. Ocean is an integral part of that task force, a tool to be used when needed, not only a stand alone asset.

Also, if Ocean is replaced, like most sensible nations on this globe, they know the quickest way from Pacific to Atlantic is to go thru the Panama canal, hence the Panamax requirement would be enforced on any replacement, as with most capital vessels that have been constructed since the 1940's !

I just need to clarify something, what I am mainly proposing is that the Ocean replacement should be large, and possibly use the CVF design as a starting basis. Take out a lot of the wriglys etc and it should be cheaper. In which case why go for something small when for not much more you can go for something big? IF you have loads of void spaces (which could be accessed in the future) then so what? At least you would have a massive flight deck and hangar.

Again, this is a nice thought, but nice thoughts don't get enough funds from the chancellor !!

Would you buy a new car that had two extra back doors & seating space for an additional 3 passengers, that was all sealed up & that you couldn't use ??

Practicalities mean that it's ALWAYS cheaper to construct the vessel "as fitted", rather than build in space "for later on".

Most vessel designs for the RN / RFA, are seriously examined, to ensure that the correct type of vessel, of the correct dimensions is constructed.

The reasoning behind this is if you construct a vessel that's X feet long & only 2/3rds of that space is actively used, with the remaining 1/3rd sealed off as a void, then that space is wasted funds, as there is no guarantee that the void space will ever be used.

Also, if / when you get the funds to use that space, you then have to pull the vessel from active duty to undertake the "upgrade / refit", which costs money & stretches resources.




Systems Adict

:kar

 

[Miles]

Why ?? :lam

While I appreciate that CVF will be in a CBG, with sub(s), X-amount T-45's, X-amount T-23's + Albion or Bulwark, 1 or 2 LSD(A)'s & possibly one of the Wave class oilers, why wouldn't Ocean be included ?

If the RN was to "go to war" (which is doubtful, as the RN judges each developing scenario on it's own merits), it would take all assets it needs to do the job. Ocean is an integral part of that task force, a tool to be used when needed, not only a stand alone asset.

Also, if Ocean is replaced, like most sensible nations on this globe, they know the quickest way from Pacific to Atlantic is to go thru the Panama canal, hence the Panamax requirement would be enforced on any replacement, as with most capital vessels that have been constructed since the 1940's !






Again, this is a nice thought, but nice thoughts don't get enough funds from the chancellor !!

Would you buy a new car that had two extra back doors & seating space for an additional 3 passengers, that was all sealed up & that you couldn't use ??

Practicalities mean that it's ALWAYS cheaper to construct the vessel "as fitted", rather than build in space "for later on".

Most vessel designs for the RN / RFA, are seriously examined, to ensure that the correct type of vessel, of the correct dimensions is constructed.

The reasoning behind this is if you construct a vessel that's X feet long & only 2/3rds of that space is actively used, with the remaining 1/3rd sealed off as a void, then that space is wasted funds, as there is no guarantee that the void space will ever be used.

Also, if / when you get the funds to use that space, you then have to pull the vessel from active duty to undertake the "upgrade / refit", which costs money & stretches resources.




Systems Adict

:kar

Do you really think that the RN will undertake an amphious operation without a CVF in attendance?

And how often does the RN operate in the Pacific? Very rarely, and then usually a sole frigate or destroyer.

It seems strange to limit the size of a vessel because once or twice in its career it might have to go through the Panama canal. Also, if there is no time pressure then surely it would be better to send a CVF or Ocean's replacement south to the Pacific via the Falklands to give the Argies a wake up call?

 

[swerve]

Do you really think that the RN will undertake an amphious operation without a CVF in attendance? ...

Has done - small ones. Ocean went to Sierra Leone escorted by a single frigate, IIRC. Depends on the perceived threat & the calculation of the force needed.

 

[Systems Adict]

Do you really think that the RN will undertake an amphibious operation without a CVF in attendance?

It could well do so.

...Well for at least the next 8 years until CVF is ready !!!


Joking aside, the RN is more than capable at the moment of undertaking an amphibious action. Using a mix from the following...

x4 Bay Class LSD(A)'s
x2 LPD's (Albion & Bulwark)
x2 Type 42's
x2 Type 22's /Type 23's
x1 Submarine (equipped with T-LAM)

I've made a point of not including x1 CVS, or even an AOR, as with either Albion or Bulwark being the command ship, the only major glaring hole is Air-cover.

Assuming it's just a small skirmish, helo support would probably suffice in this area, especially if it was a Longbow or two...

It seems strange to limit the size of a vessel because once or twice in its career it might have to go through the Panama canal. Also, if there is no time pressure then surely it would be better to send a CVF or Ocean's replacement south to the Pacific via the Falklands to give the Argies a wake up call?

...Better to limit the ships size & get there quickly, than take an additional 14 - 21 days going the long way round.



Your Thoughts...


Systems Adict

 

[Tasman]

Earlier posts in this thread have suggested that Ocean's replacement will not need a docking well. An aviation variant of the Spanish BPE with the docking well eliminated in favour of additional accommodation and hangar space might be a possibility or what about an 'off the shelf' USN LHA(R)? These are based on the Wasp class but with extra aviation facilities and no docking well. However, cost and manpower requirements may be a concern.

Tas

 

[riksavage]

I understand from reliable sources that the RN is looking at a very similar design to the one being purchased for the RAN, minus docking well.

Ocean has by all accounts proved itself as an excellent platform capable of operating independently (minus carrier) with limited support (T22 / 23),particularly in the context of humanitarian support and strategic raiding where the air threat was limited or near non exisitant. (Sierra Leone).

 

[swerve]

Earlier posts in this thread have suggested that Ocean's replacement will not need a docking well. An aviation variant of the Spanish BPE with the docking well eliminated in favour of additional accommodation and hangar space might be a possibility or what about an 'off the shelf' USN LHA(R)? These are based on the Wasp class but with extra aviation facilities and no docking well. However, cost and manpower requirements may be a concern.

Tas

I think cost & manning would be very big concerns. I would expect a BPE sin dique inundable to come in at a much lower cost per ton, & probably need fewer crew per ton. Cost maybe 25% of a USN LHA(R), the first of which was projected at over $3 billion, last I heard.

 

[harryriedl]

Earlier posts in this thread have suggested that Ocean's replacement will not need a docking well. An aviation variant of the Spanish BPE with the docking well eliminated in favour of additional accommodation and hangar space might be a possibility or what about an 'off the shelf' USN LHA(R)? These are based on the Wasp class but with extra aviation facilities and no docking well. However, cost and manpower requirements may be a concern.

Tas

the problem with LHA(R) apart from the cost is that it's to big i think for both the Portsmouth and the Devonport dry docks as it tops out 50,000ton and larger than CdG.
i do like the idea of a modified BPE so we can get more than one

 

[Super Nimrod]

I know the dry dock thing can be an issue, but one would have thought that the RN will put some facilities in Portsmouth for when they base the CVF's there in addition to the Rosyth building dock, (which also needs significant enlargement for the CVF's). This problem may well disappear in terms of a larger LPH once the RN grasp the scale of the CVF support network needed which no doubt they have a handle on anyway.

 

[swerve]

There's a report in the current print edition of JDW related to this -

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw070830_1_n.shtml

3000 or so tons, based on the Oman corvette hull, 25 knots or so - "Ocean capable patrol vessel". Deck for helicopter up to Merlin, covered weather deck with handling facilities for RIBs & the like. Gun up to 76mm envisaged, space for SAMs if wanted, space for equipment modules for MCM etc.

Thoughts?

 

[harryriedl]

looks to be a almost UK-ised LCS

 

[Super Nimrod]

Lets wait and see what the formal announcement says. From Swerves note it sounds little different to what VT released some time ago. Theres an artists impression on the Navy matters web page under FSC.

One comment though is that I would rather see a full size 4.5 gun on a 325 foot vessel. The tiny flower class Corvettes in WW2 carried 4 inch and they were only 200 feet long !

 

[swerve]

looks to be a almost UK-ised LCS

Very different basis. Look at the speed (more like an ordinary large OPV), look at the structure (steel). I'd expect it to be much cheaper, as well.

 

[Systems Adict]

...I would rather see a full size 4.5 gun on a 325 foot vessel. The tiny flower class Corvettes in WW2 carried 4 inch and they were only 200 feet long !

I can see your logic on this, a 4.5" MOD1 would be nice, as it's continuity with the fleet, a proven system, good coverage/range, etc., etc., but on the other hand I can understand why they would offer the 76mm Otto.

Again, it has comparisons with the 4.5" (proven system, etc)but, if it were MY choice the 76mm would win.

In the weight characteristics the 76mm is only around 8 tonnes, the 4.5" is nearer 14 tonnes.

In rate of fire, the 76mm can fire about 120 rnds/min., the 4.5" can only fire about 25-30 rnds/min.

The 76mm can also be used for AA (Anti-Aircraft), as well as standard defence against other targets, and NGS (Naval Gunfire Support).

Obviously, some of the accuracy of both guns would depend on the command system & predictor that the gun is hooked into, but I feel that they are both reasonably matched on that front, while in range, the 4.5" wins by achieving over 15 nautical miles, while the 76mm can only reach about 10 nautical miles.

Finally, coming down to physical design & the practicalities of space, I'd say that the 76mm would be better on a smaller ship (100 Meters or less), as it's "footprint" & space demand below decks is smaller than the 4.5", as would be the action/reaction to the recoil from the gun firing.


Systems Adict

 

[harryriedl]

Very different basis. Look at the speed (more like an ordinary large OPV), look at the structure (steel). I'd expect it to be much cheaper, as well.

thats what i meant its more like an OPV and uses steel but it has the modularization of the LCS and the is a similar size to the LCS and i guess its got about the same range

 

[Truculent]

The link above only gives access to the non-subscriber article.Would someone be able to post some of the missing detail on this vessel?

 

[kato]

One comment though is that I would rather see a full size 4.5 gun on a 325 foot vessel. The tiny flower class Corvettes in WW2 carried 4 inch and they were only 200 feet long !

The 260-ft (80m) D'Estienne d'Orves class carries a 100mm (3.9in) turret firing at 80rpm, same as the 306-ft (93.5m) Floreal OPVHs.
Anything below that size, you'll see 76mm nowadays only.

 

[swerve]

The link above only gives access to the non-subscriber article.Would someone be able to post some of the missing detail on this vessel?

There's some of what I remember from the print article (not my copy) in the first post. In addition (from memory) -

Accommodation for up to 76.
At least four RIBs, or a couple of larger boats, on the covered deck at the stern.
Option of stern crane or boat deploying thingy a la Absalon .
Space for two 20 ft containers containing mission equipment.
Additional mission modules can be carried on the helicopter deck, at the cost of reducing the size of helicopter carried, or replacing the helicopter, depending on how many are carried.
IIRC, a couple of extra guns up to 30mm.
Can be delivered fitted "for but not with" SAMs. I'm not sure if this means boxed VL launchers such as Mica VL, or swivel launchers such as SADRAL. Maybe either.