The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Jambo_100 said:
does anyone know anything about a replacement for the RN frigates?
Click to expand...

Plans are in the works, as has been discussed on this thread more than once, but nothing concrete is expected for a few years. There are more pressing priorities such as getting construction on the new carriers started, a decision being made over Type 45 destroyers numbers 7 & 8, ordering the new RFA tankers, etc.
 
Earlier posts suggest that we are now in the process of pricing up the MARS vessels with up to six potentially being ordered.

One of the much discussed issues on here is the seventh and eighth Type 45 destroyer. Each of these vessels seems to come in at about £1 billion with half of that reportedly attributable to the radar and missiles.

If that is the case would an alternative to the remaining Type 45's be to install the Sampson/Aster combination in four of the MARS vessels. This would cost the same as the two Type 45's but would give us four air defence capably ships instead of two and would save on running and crewing requirements.

The concept was explored with the Fort Victoria class which were fitted for but not with Seawolf. As I understand the concept was that the lightly armed pre-Falklands design for the Type 23 would operate in small groups with a Fort class acting as the command ship and providing air defence (though I'm not sure how it was supposed to do that with a point defence SAM rather than an area defence missile). The missiles were not installed when the lessons learned from the Falklands led to the Type 23 design being changed into a fully capable frigate.

Given most task groups would usually have at least one MARS allocated to them is this not a cost effective way to increase the number of air defence capable platforms at no extra cost?

Steve
 
spsun100001 said:
Earlier posts suggest that we are now in the process of pricing up the MARS vessels with up to six potentially being ordered.

One of the much discussed issues on here is the seventh and eighth Type 45 destroyer. Each of these vessels seems to come in at about £1 billion with half of that reportedly attributable to the radar and missiles.

If that is the case would an alternative to the remaining Type 45's be to install the Sampson/Aster combination in four of the MARS vessels. This would cost the same as the two Type 45's but would give us four air defence capably ships instead of two and would save on running and crewing requirements.

The concept was explored with the Fort Victoria class which were fitted for but not with Seawolf. As I understand the concept was that the lightly armed pre-Falklands design for the Type 23 would operate in small groups with a Fort class acting as the command ship and providing air defence (though I'm not sure how it was supposed to do that with a point defence SAM rather than an area defence missile). The missiles were not installed when the lessons learned from the Falklands led to the Type 23 design being changed into a fully capable frigate.

Given most task groups would usually have at least one MARS allocated to them is this not a cost effective way to increase the number of air defence capable platforms at no extra cost?

Steve
Click to expand...
the two T45 have been budgeted so i don't the drastic measures of the Fort class shouldn't be necessary. I would be interested if the CSG tankers are a new design or not [they need to be replaced last its Rover and leaf class which need to be replaced 1st]. the problem with your MARS plan is it very manpower infficent
 
spsun100001 said:
...If that is the case would an alternative to the remaining Type 45's be to install the Sampson/Aster combination in four of the MARS vessels. This would cost the same as the two Type 45's but would give us four air defence capably ships instead of two and would save on running and crewing requirements.

..Given most task groups would usually have at least one MARS allocated to them is this not a cost effective way to increase the number of air defence capable platforms at no extra cost?

Steve
Click to expand...

Don't mean to shot you down here....BUT...


What planet are you from ??



MARS is a replacement for the aging single skinned tanker fleet, while also taking on some of the other RFA type "replenishment" roles.


It is NOT & has NOT be designed to be a "be all & end all" capital ship. The costs of designing, building, then testing this type / style of vessel would probably swallow the budget for All 6 vessels, to produce just 1 !!


The Fort Class ships / AOR's where a good idea that should have been fully funded / supported, but as ever, UK Govt sold the lot down the river by not giving it the legs it needed to run.

Then again it's all ancient history, so maybe it should be looked at & the "lessons learned" extracted, for addition into design proposals for the C1 / C2 / C3 ideas that are being discussed. Then again, have we learned anything from our last 30-40 years?

Like the extensive use of Aluminum for upper deck structures on the T22's / T42's & the effects of a fire ???


Your Thoughts

Systems Adict
 
Musashi_kenshin said:
Plans are in the works, as has been discussed on this thread more than once, but nothing concrete is expected for a few years. There are more pressing priorities such as getting construction on the new carriers started, a decision being made over Type 45 destroyers numbers 7 & 8, ordering the new RFA tankers, etc.
Click to expand...

Does anythink the Labour Government will even replace the frigates? or will they just order some modified T45's? its a real shame to see what has happened to our armed forces. But on the bright side of the little stuff we are getting, its all pretty cool. Do you have any really good sites where i can research this navy stuff?
 
Systems Adict said:
Don't mean to shot you down here....BUT...


What planet are you from ??



MARS is a replacement for the aging single skinned tanker fleet, while also taking on some of the other RFA type "replenishment" roles.


It is NOT & has NOT be designed to be a "be all & end all" capital ship. The costs of designing, building, then testing this type / style of vessel would probably swallow the budget for All 6 vessels, to produce just 1 !!


Systems Adict
Click to expand...

MARS is not yet designed so we have the opportunity to make it what we want it to be.

It is currently intended to be exactly what you say but I'm posing the question of whether, before it is designed, it could be utilised as something else in addition to those roles. We have used amphibious ships and replenishment ships for duties previously allocated to escorts recently. In an age of shrinking hull numbers getting the most out of every hull surely makes complete sense.

I'm no expert but neither am I on another planet (I'm also polite enough to realise that someone can disagree with me, correct a factual inaccuracy on my part, come up with an idea I regard as wacky or just take a different perspective without the need to insult them in my response).

The Sampson radar, command systems, VLS and missiles are already designed and I wouldn't have thought putting the VLS in a blockhouse, replicating the AAW consoules used on the Type 45 below decks and adding a mast to carry the radar on a ship the size of MARS would be hugely complex to the extent that it would cost vastly more than the £450 million per ship that it costs to put these in the Type 45 hull.

A ship can be designed to be whatever you want it to be. In a period of shrinking fleets each hull will need to do more.

I'm just canvassing peoples responses to an option which would deliver a 25% increase in the number of AAW platforms planned for the RN at the same cost currently 'budgeted'.

On I sidenote, I completely agree with you over our inability to learn lessons.
 
Heres a thought

If these new 'super' AAW Tankers got badly damaged, then where would you be? Without Area Air Defence and no fuel or supplies.


If its been budgeted for, i'd rather have a full 8 Type 45's. With the new CVF being ordered, i'd rather have 8 proper Destroyers than 6 and some poorly botched hybrids (because that is what the UK Govt is like, it would be a poorly botched hybrid done on half the budget).
 
ASFC said:
Heres a thought

If these new 'super' AAW Tankers got badly damaged, then where would you be? Without Area Air Defence and no fuel or supplies.


If its been budgeted for, i'd rather have a full 8 Type 45's. With the new CVF being ordered, i'd rather have 8 proper Destroyers than 6 and some poorly botched hybrids (because that is what the UK Govt is like, it would be a poorly botched hybrid done on half the budget).
Click to expand...

More eggs in one baskets is definitely more risk. Equally though you'd have 10 baskets not 8.

Not sure I can disagree with you that when it comes to defence that anything the UK government does is a bodge!
 
Another problem, surely these ships have to be operated by the RFA, not the RN, and by putting anything more than point self defence weapons makes the RFA more of a target (not that it wouldn't be anyway, but i'm sure there are issues about putting civilians in that kind of danger when they effectively signed up to operate Merchant Ships).

I think you are right spsun100001, multi-purpose ships will creep up more in the future, but i think the line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
ASFC said:
Another problem, surely these ships have to be operated by the RFA, not the RN, and by putting anything more than point self defence weapons makes the RFA more of a target (not that it wouldn't be anyway, but i'm sure there are issues about putting civilians in that kind of danger when they effectively signed up to operate Merchant Ships).

I think you are right spsun100001, multi-purpose ships will creep up more in the future, but i think the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...

From the RFA website -
"UK personnel serve under RFA conditions of service which contain clauses that take account of the Service centred around replenishment at sea, and also provide that the crew stay with the ship in the event of its being directed to an area where warlike hazards may arise."

The crews know the difference between the RFA & merchant ships, & sign up for it.

Even the privately-owned, privately-operated Point-class ro-ro transports have crews of sponsored reservists.

But otherwise, I agree. AAW supply ships aren't a good idea.
 
I read yesterday, that Illustrious had to be turned around back to Portsmouth for repairs in the meet fridge.
The reason given was that it was easier to turn the ship around than to fly the technicians to the ship.
Considering that Illustrious is the flag ship of a multinational task force to the Indian Ocean, that does not make much sense, does it?, I mean surely makes more sense flying technicians and spare parts than to delay the task force for a whole week.
Have anybody heard anything else on this matter?


Regards.
 
Blas de Lezo said:
I read yesterday, that Illustrious had to be turned around back to Portsmouth for repairs in the meet fridge.
The reason given was that it was easier to turn the ship around than to fly the technicians to the ship.
Considering that Illustrious is the flag ship of a multinational task force to the Indian Ocean, that does not make much sense, does it?, I mean surely makes more sense flying technicians and spare parts than to delay the task force for a whole week.
Have anybody heard anything else on this matter?


Regards.
Click to expand...

It certainly sounds like a strange decision if the report is accurate. It worries me that an important ship like Illustrious does not appear to have the capability to repair a fridge at sea! :shudder

Tas
 
The information is readily available on Internet. I am not allowed to post urls:confused:

It sounds so strange that makes you think.... Is that the real reason why Illustrious is turning back?
 
i don't really see the problem with returning to port if its easier to do the repairs there, its not like the ship is half way around the world. Flying technicians and spares out to a ship that has only just left port seems like a waste of time, effort and money to me.
 
windscorpion said:
i don't really see the problem with returning to port if its easier to do the repairs there, its not like the ship is half way around the world. Flying technicians and spares out to a ship that has only just left port seems like a waste of time, effort and money to me.
Click to expand...

The costs involved with turning the ship around would not exactly be insignificant. :confused: How many technicians and parts would have to be flown out? Perhaps Blas de Lezo is right and there is a bit more involved in this.

Tas
 
Well to me sounds strange because:
1- The ship is two days away from Portsmouth, fully loaded, That’s , let’s see… two days lost+ two days to be back+ lets say 1 day for repairs+ two days to be back to the point where the ship was. One week delay + fuel expenses etc. That is a lot of money!!
2- Illustrious is the flag ship of the task force, so the rest of the task force gets delayed for a week
3- It does not matter how big the fridge is, the room itself does not break down!!, the cooling parts do, coils, compressors, evaporators etc and they are not big parts (relatively )nor is the technology or skills required to fix them difficult to find or supply
4- The task force is going to be doing numerous stops around the Med. How difficult it would be to fix the fridge during one of this med stops. As you said, the ship is not half way around the world!!, they do not need to fly anything, they could even send it by lorry!!


Regards
 
Bearing in mind that illustrious on its way to the Med is passing by;
1. Ferrol , second biggest Spanish Naval base and home port of AWD F104,
Part of the task force and escort to Illustrius, and biggest shipyards in Spain, two days by lorry from Portsmouth.

2. Rota , main Spanish naval Base and main Nato Base, 3 days by lorry
3. Gibraltar UK naval base and 3 days by lorry


And also considering that I think it was yesterday, Iran announced mayor naval exercises and the deteriorating situation in Pakistan , the cynic in me, thinks that maybe they forgot to load something on board Illustrious that now they think they could need.
I know I am being very cynical but this fridge thing just does not make sense to me.
 
Blas de Lezo said:
Bearing in mind that illustrious on its way to the Med is passing by;
1. Ferrol , second biggest Spanish Naval base and home port of AWD F104,
Part of the task force and escort to Illustrius, and biggest shipyards in Spain, two days by lorry from Portsmouth.

2. Rota , main Spanish naval Base and main Nato Base, 3 days by lorry
3. Gibraltar UK naval base and 3 days by lorry


And also considering that I think it was yesterday, Iran announced mayor naval exercises and the deteriorating situation in Pakistan , the cynic in me, thinks that maybe they forgot to load something on board Illustrious that now they think they could need.
I know I am being very cynical but this fridge thing just does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me where you heard Iran announce yesterday that it plans to conduct major naval exercises? If you can't post a link just give the name of the source, so I can do a google search on it. I'm interested in finding out the date, that the exercise will be taking place. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top