t68
Well-Known Member
Not to my knowledge,the Australian AWD is on time and on budget i have not heard anything to contradict this. The only thing were trying to do is get a fourth on the books due to lack of funds.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Not to my knowledge,the Australian AWD is on time and on budget i have not heard anything to contradict this. The only thing were trying to do is get a fourth on the books due to lack of funds.
Sorry I put that sentence in the wrong place. I meant only the RAN of major Navies has yet to commision 3rd generation AWDs; not that they are late or over budget. I think the RAN has made an excellent decision buying F100s, a great balance of cost/capability, and the Australian modifications will only enhance the ships, I do hope you get your 4th. The RAN has been very good generally at getting value out its procurement programme (maybe with the exceptions of the Collins!)
Sorry I didn't understand. Are you saying the RAN is not good at getting financial value, but is good at getting capability?
localhost127
Member
advantages supersonic:
- -speed (kinetic energy on impact - even if missile/warhead is destroyed at close range, flying fragments could impact and do severe damage due to high KE).
- -speed (difficulty / response time of tracking?)
- -speed (element of surprise? -if launched from close range (e.g. gulf)
'?' = debatable.
dis-advantages supersonic:
- -over-the-horizon detection (larger RCS, huge IR plume)
- -active seeker may have difficulty finding 'target' through ECCM/decoy/chaff - may not have time to sort through everything in terminal phase
- -maneuverability
advantages: subsonic
- -size (less fuel consumption, smaller overall size)
- -smaller platform = smaller RCS
- -lower detection rates in the IR lambdas (airframe heating due to air friction at low altitudes + smaller exhaust plume advantages when subsonic vs supersonic)
- -element of surprise (harder to detect over horizon due to RCS/IR)
- -maneuverability
- -active seeker targeting (slower speed = more time to sift through ECCM/decoys/chaff, or would that work against it (more time to be confused by clutter?)
question ... i understand the USN has steered towards subsonic as of some considerable time ago...however, does this have to do with the fact that no other nation/force has the carrier fleet we possess? it isn't logical to say (even though i may be correct) that since the USN decided against supersonic against what it considers her threats...that supersonic AShMs might not be a better choice for other forces to combat USN fleets. USN vs other fleets may not share the same type/class of targets... i know that's probably incorrect, but i just wanted to probe the question. surface contacts are surface contacts, i suppose
its a CONOPS issue as well as a technology issue. in fact the logic is very similar to the LO platform debate as to why LO aircraft are not interested in absolute speed.
question ... i understand the USN has steered towards subsonic as of some considerable time ago...however, does this have to do with the fact that no other nation/force has the carrier fleet we possess? it isn't logical to say (even though i may be correct) that since the USN decided against supersonic against what it considers her threats...that supersonic AShMs might not be a better choice for other forces to combat USN fleets. USN vs other fleets may not share the same type/class of targets... i know that's probably incorrect, but i just wanted to probe the question. surface contacts are surface contacts, i suppose
jet fighters have also travelled this path, as of 4th gen, the emphasis shifted away from absolute speed. (ie Mach 2 etc...)
no, not at all, the reference was specific to Collins
absolute cost is an incorrect way to look at solution set success.
it comprises:
value for money
value for government (a very distinct difference in Govt procurement)
value for capability
capability advantage
Well ignoring the Collins that seems to be having a few challenges, the decision on the AWD looks a sound balance of value/capability.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Fairly sure that the main problem with Collins at the moment is crewing them all. RAN has three crews, with the Navy trying to put together a fourth.
That is true.
As mentioned by others, it's competitors, some of whom have been in service for years, doesn't look like they are significantly less cabable - if less cabable at all. And then there is the cost issue, which is strongly in disfavour of the type45.
First of all the other european AAW frigates aren't builded by cvilian standards, and there is nothing to suggest that dutch or German shipbuilding isn't on par with british - infact there is a lot that suggest that exactly dutch and german shipbuilding is more advanced than UK shipbuilding (f.ex. them having a viable shipbuilding industry and are world leaders in construction of specialized ships).
Secondly I think people got the "civilian standard" issue of the ABSs mixed up. In danish the "civiian" part refers to the industrial process in which HDMS Absalon and HDMS Esbern Snare has been builded by Lindø yard as if the projects were ordinary civilian projects (albeit with some special requirements). The weaponry and millitary stuff has then been retrofitted by the navy yard or the surpliers (with the exception of the 5" gun, that was installed by United Defense during construction at the yard). The 3 new AAW frigates are builded in a similar way. There is nothing that suggest that the technical quality of the ships are low or not up to par with other. We should also remember that the Lindø yard is/was a technology leader in (civilian) shipbuilding, well known for quality, innovation and handling of industrial processes.
Maybe it is a good idea to listen to the bankers now and then. Denmark, 1/12 the population of the UK, spending less than half the money on defense per capita than the UK will be fielding 3 large AAW frigates and two large "command and surport" frigates (the abs). And it will have done so for the aqusition cost of less than a single Type45.
I don't give a lot for the "battle experience" part. battle Info is shared and other countries have also learned from that war.
If the Falklands showed anything, it was that a 3nd rated power with a 4th rated millitary (only good for torturing students) quilty in overconfidence could by relatively simple means provide a, at the time, modern british navy a lot of problems. Something that would suggest a need for dramatic rethinking.
Last edited:
citizen578
New Member
I actually had to scroll up and check that I was indeed in the Royal Navy Discussions and Updates thread, rather than a thread for schoolboy fantasies and idle chitter-chatter about unrelated or, at best, very vaguely related issues. Is it possible that we might once again turn back to a thread of informed discussion and news about the RN?
Couldn't agree more. The points about the Danish Navy's procurement of ships and many others (particularly the Spanish F100s) should be discussed, not as negative critisim of the RN but to learn from them. People in this forum regularly complain about being forced to cut cost/buy cheap which I think they are confusing with buying badly. I have not seen any data on naval budgets by country, but if the UK does have the 3-4th Largest defence budget, the RN probably is second only to the USN in share of that spend.
Ships are mostly unimaginative (compare the Albions v Mistrals) late, and over budget. We should be asking why?
To save money you can cut/compromise capability, but I don't think the RN has to do that to a level that put lives at risk. In fact the current approach of: over specification, over ambitious capability, unrealsitic orders/timescales and just picking the wrong technology horses to back with make/buy decisions, is putting far more lives at risk; there are gaps in capability all over the place (No Sea Harriers since 2006, only 5 ancient T42s).
I am sure we could have built modified F100s in greater numbers and at a lower cost than the C1 will end up costing, let alone the T45. A straight production run of: 18 ships, built in batches of 6 each decade, from the same yard, planned in advance, started in the early 1990s (when we should have begun replacements for the Counties/T42); would mean we would be discussing the Batch 3 ships just entering service, with upgraded Samson Mk 2 and a new updated Active Sea Dart. Instead of the C1 debate we would be looking to the future and replacement for the Batch 1s from 2020 with capability to rival the DD(X).
Hambo said:
As I understand it, the machinery fit of GT's on the Type 45 doesnt make it a particulrly good ASW ship, its not the role its designed for afterall, so the Type 26 is ASW ft will need the silent sub stalking ability of the Type 23, its a specialised task to isolate machinary noise, and to make a stealthy hull, I have read that from numerous people within the industry on these boards. A fat arsed flex deck slamming up and down in the waves would add noise.
I have also heard the RR WR21 is extremely expensive (£50m per ship?) to buy and build (though apparently very fuel efficient?), so why build the T45 with such engines, the RN have just fittied the most expensive option, not adding to the primary capability, and if they are then not ideal for ASW even more foolish. The Burkes are general escorts for AA/ASW; the T45 should also have 1st tier capability in both. If it them made sense to have a C1 with 1st tier ASW and only local SAMs for lower cost then ok (which I don't agree with anyway).
This reminds me of the USN and their nuclear powered crusiers in the 60/70s, the crushing cost of the powerplant was detracting from the numbers that even the USN could afford to build. They realised after 7 ships the error of their ways and built 27 excellent Ticonderogas in 14 years. They probably cost more in real terms than the CGN, but this time the money was focused where it should have been on the weapons system.
As I understand it, the machinery fit of GT's on the Type 45 doesnt make it a particulrly good ASW ship, its not the role its designed for afterall, so the Type 26 is ASW ft will need the silent sub stalking ability of the Type 23, its a specialised task to isolate machinary noise, and to make a stealthy hull, I have read that from numerous people within the industry on these boards. A fat arsed flex deck slamming up and down in the waves would add noise.
I have also heard the RR WR21 is extremely expensive (£50m per ship?) to buy and build (though apparently very fuel efficient?), so why build the T45 with such engines, the RN have just fittied the most expensive option, not adding to the primary capability, and if they are then not ideal for ASW even more foolish. The Burkes are general escorts for AA/ASW; the T45 should also have 1st tier capability in both. If it them made sense to have a C1 with 1st tier ASW and only local SAMs for lower cost then ok (which I don't agree with anyway).
This reminds me of the USN and their nuclear powered crusiers in the 60/70s, the crushing cost of the powerplant was detracting from the numbers that even the USN could afford to build. They realised after 7 ships the error of their ways and built 27 excellent Ticonderogas in 14 years. They probably cost more in real terms than the CGN, but this time the money was focused where it should have been on the weapons system.
Last edited:
Yup. And AFAIK that's still the defining difference between them, the thing which makes a particular ship C1 rather than C2 - even if those terms have been dropped. There will also be other differences, of course, to (as you say) keep the cost of C2 down. It might not have all the silencing features of C1, for example. It's not primarily ASW, so they're less important.
If you're not going to fit the SPY-1 radar system the F100 is designed around, why bother with the F100? Why not start with the De Zeven Provincien/Type 124?
Unlike the F100, they have a separate long range radar & targeting radar, which your mention of Samson implies your hypothetical ships would have.
BTW, how do you start building a modified F100 starting in the early 1990s? The agreement between Spain, Germany & the Netherlands on a common(ish) hull was made in 1994, & the first ship was launched in 2000. You have us building a batch of 6 ships based on that design before the first unmodified ship was launched!
Funding must be considered alongside tasking. We've spent a lot of money on two wars in the last decade. It's very easy to say the UK isn't funding its armed forces adequately - for what they are being asked to do.
BTW, expenditure has been dropping as a share of GDP. IIRC it was 2.4% in 2005, & is about 2.1% now.
Type 12 was built from the 1950s to (in its Leander-class incarnation) 1973. Sea Sparrow didn't exist until after the last one was built. It could not, therefore, have had Sea Sparrow unless retrofitted.
Type 21 was a cheap gap filler, hurried into service. Sea Sparrow wasn't ready until a couple of years after T21s started being commissioned. A gap filler which has to wait for a new weapon system to be built fails in its primary purpose.
We built ships with Sea Wolf instead of Sea Sparrow. It entered service 3 years later. It's still around, & still effective. Are you saying that we should have fitted Sea Sparrow to Type22 instead of Sea Wolf? Since it was a foreign system, it's unlikely we'd have got it significantly earlier. In 1982, we'd have been in much the same position, with Sea Cat equipped T21s & Leanders, & some T22s. The only difference would have been that the last would have had Sea Sparrow instead of Sea Wolf. Would it have made a difference? I don't see why.
Last edited:
I was actually referring to a Descubierta-class "type of" corvettes which had Sea Sparrow & a 76mm gun and commissioned between 1978-82, but I don't know if they commissioned with the Sea Sparrow so you could be right. The comparison with the T21 & T12 was that they had a high profile in the Falklands and were armed (if you can call it that) with Sea Cat, I am sure Leanders were also present, but I couldn't remember any so didn't mention.
My point about Sea Wolf was not just timing but size, it was designed to be a point defence system but it required a ship the size of a T42, you would hae struggled to have fitted Sea Wolf to a Descubierta/A69 in the early form of the system. Agree about the T21 we should have just built more T42s
Last edited:
i know, because we are going to build a type of corvette in the early 1970s before even the Spanish Navy had designed them, because that is when the Type 21s where built, not 1978-82. As swerve points out, you have to build your gap fillers with what is available at the time.
Similarly, most Type 42s where built in the late 1970's/early 80's, after the majority of the Type 21s.....again not much of a gap filler if you wait 10 years to build more Type 42s!
I had not thought about the issues of fuelling Sea Dart. Since you raised I have been looking on the net. I can't see at what point it was fuelled, it does seem there was some debate about it being VLS, but went the way of LW Sea Wolf, due to funding. There was a containerised version developed for export and it appears this was part of the concept behind Guardian, the land based system, or maybe the other way round. This would imply it could be self contained.
Also others pointed out it is only kerosene, as it’s a jet not a liquid fuelled rocket. Missiles like Harpoon are stored in canisters and fired from VLS, but to be honest there is nothing conclusive, so I couldn’t say for definite.
I don’t know how other Ramjet missiles are treated, MBDA Meteor uses one, but then that is not likely to be stored for long period.