The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kato]

If there are going to be cuts, I would rather cut the mine sweepers and mine hunting force in half. While I understand there is a mine threat, does the UK need so many small ships in this century in a pacified Europe?

Minehunters and Minesweepers also serve as patrol ships, in any Navy.

As for the British MCM forces - cut them in half, and you'd have problems even fulfilling the current RN deployment numbers of MCM ships. Six ships tied up at the moment - four in CTF158, two in SNMCMGs.

 

[Highwayman]

It doesn't matter what you wish for or what the government say they are going to do this is the reality .

Two Navy destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash


By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:07 PM on 09th June 2008

• <LI class=first>Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories

Two Royal Navy destroyers could not fire their missiles if they came under attack - because they have been removed to save cash.
Type 42s HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton have been working without their Sea Dart guided missile system since Christmas, it was revealed today.
To go with the cutbacks, at least half a dozen operating crew have been transferred to other ships.
The missiles, used to protect the destroyers and larger aircraft carriers against air attack, have been stored away even though HMS Exeter has sailed to the Mediterranean twice and joined a NATO-led operation in that time.

Two Royal Navy destroyers could not fire their missiles if they came under attack (file picture)
It has provoked anger from defence sources who claim the navy is suffering from short-term cost cutting.
Rear Admiral David Bawtree, the former Commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: "It seems to be a sign of the times that there is a lack of willingness to spend money.
"It is surprising that the destroyers are sailing without their primary defence, though I would add they still have lesser gun defences.
"But you only have to look at the comments in the media about Army pay to see there is disgruntlement, and spending is much, much lower now than during my time."
Sea Dart - first used successfully in the Falklands War in 1982 - will be phased out as the new Type 45 Daring class destroyers come into service.
But Southampton and Exeter are still supposed to be fully operational until 2009.
Even the Navy website for HMS Southampton advertises that Sea Dart is her primary armament.
Former naval officer and editor of Warship World, Mike Critchley, said: "You cannot claim to have ships doing a job before the Type 45s come in when in fact they are missing vital abilities.
"As a taxpayer it is not reassuring to see an expensive destroyer like Exeter engaged in not much more than a PR tour."
Defence Select Committee member and Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock said: "I am very surprised to learn that we have warships coming out of British waters without their main air defences.
"Questions need to be put to the Navy asking how that was allowed to happen because you cannot have ships deploying without important equipment."
A Royal Navy spokesman said: "I can confirm that Sea Dart was deactivated in both ships last year, as part of a short-term financial planning decision to save money.

"It was carried out in Exeter during the summer, and then in Southampton after her deployment to the South Atlantic at the end of the year.
"The ships have a specific operating staff for Sea Dart and they have been transferred to other ships, and the missiles have been moved to storage. However, the firing equipment has remained in the ships and that means Sea Dart can be reinstated if operational priorities change.
"With regards to HMS Exeter and her visits to the Mediterranean, a risk assessment would have been carried out and the level of danger was not felt to be excessive."
The Sea Dart is a surface-to-air missile system built by British Aerospace (BAe) and has been in use since 1977.
It is fired from the deck of the ship out of a cradle carrying two missiles at a time, and targets planes and other missiles.
A specially-trained weapons crew and warfare team operate the system, which can protect a fleet from threats up to 40 nautical miles away.
It was originally fitted to both the Type 42s and Invincible class aircraft carriers, but was removed from the carriers during refits between 1998 and 2000 to create space on the flight deck for the RAF Harrier GR9 aircraft.
Since then the destroyers, which are supposed to support and protect the carriers, have retained the system.
The Sea Dart was used during the Falklands War and is credited with seven kills, including a British Gazelle helicopter downed by friendly fire.
The system continued to be used in the 1991 Gulf War, and was credited with the first validated engagement of a missile by a missile when it downed an Iraqi silkworm weapon.
The Type 42s have a range of other weapons. The ship carries a 4.5 inch medium range gun, which is maintained for use at any time, and with a Lynx helicopter embarked the ship gains further offensive power.

The navy's new Type 45s will not carry Sea Dart but will be fitted with a more modern missile system.

 

[harryriedl]

It doesn't matter what you wish for or what the government say they are going to do this is the reality .

Two Navy destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash


By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:07 PM on 09th June 2008

• <LI class=first>Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories

Two Royal Navy destroyers could not fire their missiles if they came under attack - because they have been removed to save cash.
Type 42s HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton have been working without their Sea Dart guided missile system since Christmas, it was revealed today.
To go with the cutbacks, at least half a dozen operating crew have been transferred to other ships.
The missiles, used to protect the destroyers and larger aircraft carriers against air attack, have been stored away even though HMS Exeter has sailed to the Mediterranean twice and joined a NATO-led operation in that time.

Two Royal Navy destroyers could not fire their missiles if they came under attack (file picture)
It has provoked anger from defence sources who claim the navy is suffering from short-term cost cutting.
Rear Admiral David Bawtree, the former Commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: "It seems to be a sign of the times that there is a lack of willingness to spend money.
"It is surprising that the destroyers are sailing without their primary defence, though I would add they still have lesser gun defences.
"But you only have to look at the comments in the media about Army pay to see there is disgruntlement, and spending is much, much lower now than during my time."
Sea Dart - first used successfully in the Falklands War in 1982 - will be phased out as the new Type 45 Daring class destroyers come into service.
But Southampton and Exeter are still supposed to be fully operational until 2009.
Even the Navy website for HMS Southampton advertises that Sea Dart is her primary armament.
Former naval officer and editor of Warship World, Mike Critchley, said: "You cannot claim to have ships doing a job before the Type 45s come in when in fact they are missing vital abilities.
"As a taxpayer it is not reassuring to see an expensive destroyer like Exeter engaged in not much more than a PR tour."
Defence Select Committee member and Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock said: "I am very surprised to learn that we have warships coming out of British waters without their main air defences.
"Questions need to be put to the Navy asking how that was allowed to happen because you cannot have ships deploying without important equipment."
A Royal Navy spokesman said: "I can confirm that Sea Dart was deactivated in both ships last year, as part of a short-term financial planning decision to save money.

"It was carried out in Exeter during the summer, and then in Southampton after her deployment to the South Atlantic at the end of the year.
"The ships have a specific operating staff for Sea Dart and they have been transferred to other ships, and the missiles have been moved to storage. However, the firing equipment has remained in the ships and that means Sea Dart can be reinstated if operational priorities change.
"With regards to HMS Exeter and her visits to the Mediterranean, a risk assessment would have been carried out and the level of danger was not felt to be excessive."
The Sea Dart is a surface-to-air missile system built by British Aerospace (BAe) and has been in use since 1977.
It is fired from the deck of the ship out of a cradle carrying two missiles at a time, and targets planes and other missiles.
A specially-trained weapons crew and warfare team operate the system, which can protect a fleet from threats up to 40 nautical miles away.
It was originally fitted to both the Type 42s and Invincible class aircraft carriers, but was removed from the carriers during refits between 1998 and 2000 to create space on the flight deck for the RAF Harrier GR9 aircraft.
Since then the destroyers, which are supposed to support and protect the carriers, have retained the system.
The Sea Dart was used during the Falklands War and is credited with seven kills, including a British Gazelle helicopter downed by friendly fire.
The system continued to be used in the 1991 Gulf War, and was credited with the first validated engagement of a missile by a missile when it downed an Iraqi silkworm weapon.
The Type 42s have a range of other weapons. The ship carries a 4.5 inch medium range gun, which is maintained for use at any time, and with a Lynx helicopter embarked the ship gains further offensive power.

The navy's new Type 45s will not carry Sea Dart but will be fitted with a more modern missile system.

I don't see the problem with removing the Sea Dart from the stubby T42 (the Batch 2) as the Daring are about to come into service and allows the T42 to be a cheaper patrol boat whats the point in the massive Sea Dart and launcher on a not brilliant sea boat when all your doing is hunting piriats in the carribien. storm in a tea cup

 

[Systems Adict]

...Saw this snippet on my travels about the BAE / VT Joint Venture....

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1085111636.html


SA

 

[Sea Toby]

At least the British didn't go as far as the US Navy decapitating the FFG-7s Mk 13 Standard/Harpoon missile launcher with the Sea Dart missile launcher. While they did remove the missiles from two Type 42s, obviously the British wish to save the remaining Sea Dart missiles for the ships remaining in service, and more than likely use up their inventory of missiles during exercises as the Type 42s are replaced. One must face the crews being trained for the new Aster/Sampson missile system have to come from former Sea Dart crews.

 

[riksavage]

Confirmation in the Scottish press today that T45 7&8 will not be built. No surprises, most observers had already come to terms with the fact that we would never see batch 3 vessels flying the white ensign. Slack will be taken up at the yards with Carrier superblock construction - so not all bad news.

This means that Saudi will not be opting for T45 unless the UK Government decides to hold on to just four T45's!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tasman]

Confirmation in the Scottish press today that T45 7&8 will not be built. No surprises, most observers had already come to terms with the fact that we would never see batch 3 vessels flying the white ensign. Slack will be taken up at the yards with Carrier superblock construction - so not all bad news.

This means that Saudi will not be opting for T45 unless the UK Government decides to hold on to just four T45's!!!!!!!!!

You are right. Any news that indicates that the carrier program is still on track is good news. Cancellation of T45 7&8 has long been expected so its not really a loss. Hopefully the admirals will let nothing get in the way of the CVFs as with them the UK will remain a first rate naval power.

Tas

 

[swerve]

You are right. Any news that indicates that the carrier program is still on track is good news. Cancellation of T45 7&8 has long been expected so its not really a loss. Hopefully the admirals will let nothing get in the way of the CVFs as with them the UK will remain a first rate naval power.

Tas

The carrier programme is running on rails at the moment. Remember when the MoD said the contract was ready? It couldn't be signed, because VT & BAe hadn't finished putting their joint venture together. That's dependent on the carrier order, so couldn't be finalised until the carrier order was rock solid - and the carrier order was dependent on the JV. Complicated co-ordination required, but it's all sorted now.

Agreement on the final details of the JV was reached a couple of weeks ago. The last hurdle is on June 28th, when VT will hold an Extraordinary General Meeting to approve it. It's expected to be a mere formality. BAe has already sorted out its internal approval. The JV will begin trading on July 1st. The chief executive of VT was on the radio this morning, talking about it. He expects the contract signing to be on, or very soon after, July 1st.

 

[overlander]

so if only 6 type 45,s are built what would be the strenght olf the escort force by 2020 ?? 16 ?, 18 ?? 20 ? because i don,t see any plans to replace the 4 type 22,s. and if finally type 22
,s are not replaced some time we will get the minimum number of escorts?? because this way in 30 years maybe only 15 escorts are available and the politics they don,t see the minimum they cut and cut the number without a minimum limit.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Royal Navy still has 13 Type 23s in service, after selling three off to Chile, all in service from 1991-2001. The Royal Navy is expecting at least 6 Type 45s to enter service during 2009-2013. Thus the oldest Type 23 is less than 20 years of age, and won't reach the age of 30 until 2021. If the remaining Type 42s and Type 22s are discarded by 2013, the Royal Navy should still have 19 front line escorts in service.

I don't know the answer to the question of how many front line escorts are required by the Royal Navy to escort one deployed carrier battle group, and a deployed amphibious task group? But I would think 19 escorts should be enough.

I would expect another class of frigates would be bought to replace the Type 23s starting within ten years, and another class of destroyers would be bought to replace the Type 45s starting within another 25 years. Frankly, I wouldn't expect another class of surface front line escorts until the CVF are almost completed in another eight years. While I do not expect new funds to be found to build two more Type 45 destroyers, the funds might be found. The six destroyers that are being built should replace the number of SAMs of the Type 45s.

While I realize many are concerned about the number of ships in the fleet, which appears to be decreasing, how many frigates are needed after the Cold War? This should be the basis of building up the fleet, not previous Cold war numbers.

Secondary vessels, such as patrol and mine hunting ships numbers should be built up from the ground too. A white paper should define such numbers and whether they are affordable.

 

[StevoJH]

The Royal Navy still has 13 Type 23s in service, after selling three off to Chile, all in service from 1991-2001. The Royal Navy is expecting at least 6 Type 45s to enter service during 2009-2013. Thus the oldest Type 23 is less than 20 years of age, and won't reach the age of 30 until 2021. If the remaining Type 42s and Type 22s are discarded by 2013, the Royal Navy should still have 19 front line escorts in service.

I don't know the answer to the question of how many front line escorts are required by the Royal Navy to escort one deployed carrier battle group, and a deployed amphibious task group? But I would think 19 escorts should be enough.

I would expect another class of frigates would be bought to replace the Type 23s starting within ten years, and another class of destroyers would be bought to replace the Type 45s starting within another 25 years. Frankly, I wouldn't expect another class of surface front line escorts until the CVF are almost completed in another eight years. While I do not expect new funds to be found to build two more Type 45 destroyers, the funds might be found. The six destroyers that are being built should replace the number of SAMs of the Type 45s.

While I realize many are concerned about the number of ships in the fleet, which appears to be decreasing, how many frigates are needed after the Cold War? This should be the basis of building up the fleet, not previous Cold war numbers.

Secondary vessels, such as patrol and mine hunting ships numbers should be built up from the ground too. A white paper should define such numbers and whether they are affordable.

The T45's were announced as no longer being ordered in the House of Commons, the Frigate replacement program (FSC) is being brought forward instead.

 

[outsider]

I realise this is an obvious question: But why doesn't the RN just keep its elderly T42's and T22's in service longer, say until 2020. I realise they would need an additional refit, but surely this is far, far cheaper than the cost of new ships. This would help keep up the numbers in the interim and allow more time for the construction of new escorts as money permits.

 

[swerve]

I realise this is an obvious question: But why doesn't the RN just keep its elderly T42's and T22's in service longer, say until 2020. I realise they would need an additional refit, but surely this is far, far cheaper than the cost of new ships. This would help keep up the numbers in the interim and allow more time for the construction of new escorts as money permits.

Crew size, for one. Old ships need bigger crews, & the navy is having difficulty crewing them. Maintenance requirements (also manpower intensive) is another one. Old ships need more maintenance. This is complicated by equipment on them being obsolete. Have you ever tried getting spares for 20 year old electronic equipment? Downtime for maintenance is a big problem. Two new ships might spend as much time at sea as three old ships. Replacing everything obsolete might cost so much that it's cheaper to build new ships than keep the old ones in service.

 

[harryriedl]

The Royal Navy still has 13 Type 23s in service, after selling three off to Chile, all in service from 1991-2001. The Royal Navy is expecting at least 6 Type 45s to enter service during 2009-2013. Thus the oldest Type 23 is less than 20 years of age, and won't reach the age of 30 until 2021. If the remaining Type 42s and Type 22s are discarded by 2013, the Royal Navy should still have 19 front line escorts in service.

I don't know the answer to the question of how many front line escorts are required by the Royal Navy to escort one deployed carrier battle group, and a deployed amphibious task group? But I would think 19 escorts should be enough.

I would expect another class of frigates would be bought to replace the Type 23s starting within ten years, and another class of destroyers would be bought to replace the Type 45s starting within another 25 years. Frankly, I wouldn't expect another class of surface front line escorts until the CVF are almost completed in another eight years. While I do not expect new funds to be found to build two more Type 45 destroyers, the funds might be found. The six destroyers that are being built should replace the number of SAMs of the Type 45s.

While I realize many are concerned about the number of ships in the fleet, which appears to be decreasing, how many frigates are needed after the Cold War? This should be the basis of building up the fleet, not previous Cold war numbers.

Secondary vessels, such as patrol and mine hunting ships numbers should be built up from the ground too. A white paper should define such numbers and whether they are affordable.

I am forever hopeful that the T-45 last two could be bought as a part replacement of the two oldest T-22 the navy will want to hang onto as long as possible as they have excellent C&C

 

[Sea Toby]

I was anticipating their sale to Pakistan or Brazil, providing some of the funds to buy another Type 45. But it appears its too late for this government to buy more Type 45s. I guess we should concentrate on the next class of front line escorts.

 

[swerve]

The CVFs will gobble up money for a while. The big debate among those interested seems to be about ASW. The Type 23 is very, very quiet. You can fit the kit to any hull, and a T45 hull without the expensive PAAMS stuff would provide an excellent basis for a large front line escort - except for the lack (relatively - by all accounts it's quieter than most escorts, e.g. Type 22) of quietness compared to a T23.

Note that this is all hearsay. I have no personal knowledge of the quietness or otherwise of any of these types.

But the Treasury may insist on something smaller & cheaper than a T45, maybe FREMM sized.

 

[davros]

While the navy will have enough escorts for a carrier battle group it does not have enough escorts to keep British trade routes safe during a major war situation, I think 6 Type 45 will be enough for escort of the battle group but the navy desperately needs a small frigate/corvette type ship to escort convoys and trade routes. I think around 30 frigates and destroyers would be a fair number.

 

[ASFC]

Well if they follow what was recommended for S3C3 or whatever they called it (10 C1's, 8 C2's and 8+ C3's) for FSC then I do not see what the problem is, as we will have plenty of hulls in the water-32 at least.

 

[harryriedl]

While the navy will have enough escorts for a carrier battle group it does not have enough escorts to keep British trade routes safe during a major war situation, I think 6 Type 45 will be enough for escort of the battle group but the navy desperately needs a small frigate/corvette type ship to escort convoys and trade routes. I think around 30 frigates and destroyers would be a fair number.

just curious who do you think will be capable of blocking the UK trade lanes it used to be Russia but im struggling to think of another country that could which the UK is allied with.
Do agree that there should be be more T-45 but we done much better than the French and Italy's Navies out of the Horizon project.

more anti piracy vessels would be very useful. instead using expensive T-23 to hunt pirates.

 

[davros]

no one maybe china in a few years its always good to have enough ships to protect your self even if there is no obvious enemy, I agree they need a anti piracy frigate/corvette the S3C3 sounds good but will they get whats needed.