The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[AndrewMI]

After all we all we don't want potential enemies to have the awesome power of the Heathrow terminal 5 luggage handling software available to them

Are they not fitted for but not with?

Wonder what the T-26 wll be fitted for but not with....

.... or if some new phrase comes into being!

 

[Systems Adict]

I disagree.

If for example, they were built over a 10 year period, and the average "life expectancy" of a warship if 35 years (ish) - that leaves the UK ship building industry 25 years to build...

...a mirriad of other vessels. That is, i do not think it's do able, when you consider that building carriers over 10 years would be a "go-slow" strategy and would lead to a decline in resources.

But this type of system must be agreed and policy stuck to in order to make it work. If the strategy means we can be efficient and fit an extra boat or two in, and there is a use for it, then great.

(no doubt a pro such as SA will come up with a flaw in this plan - it seems too simple to be practical!)

Flaw ?? Plan ???

While the state of the UK shipbuilding Industry is 'semi-stable' at the moment, it is apparent to those 'in the know' that it wouldn't take much 'tinkering' from UK Govt to mess it up.

Over the last 10 years the industry has ended up the way it has because of such 'tinkering. We have went from a batch of yards owned by as many different companies, to a point where several yards have folded, some have merged, while still more have been bought out by bigger 'competitors'.

While this process has been painful in some places, it has been GOOD !

The hard part now is to maintain an organised & 'stable' program of builds, that would see the industry progress through the next 25-40 years.

The current CVF build strategy does have its merits in that department.

# It spreads work across the country, rather than centering in one point.

# It provides a 'baseline model' that could be used in the future.

...BUT.... It also has it's problems...

Transportation of materials once completed, Consistant quality of product produced across many companies, THE COSTS !

That's why the 'Alliance' was formed to try & clear some of the obstacles, by providing a central hub for the design, procurment of parts/materials, one 'team' to deal with when formalising where funds go, etc, etc.

The hardest part now is getting buy in, after the elections for 'Future Programs'.

...Well that & the funding & getting 'our military' to decide WHAT it THINKS it needs IWO quantities & roles of future surface combatants & support ships.

If it gets planned, organised & funded, then we're half way there to your 'simple plan'.

SA

 

[Grim901]

Are they not fitted for but not with?

Wonder what the T-26 wll be fitted for but not with....

.... or if some new phrase comes into being!

"Prepared to be fitted for but not with." - Something along those lines. In other words, we've left space for it.

 

[swerve]

Not these things....

The sensors, electronics etc. would be the primary concern. As would hull charachteristics.

China are doing their upmost to develop an aircraft carrier. These designs are obviously not that easy to get hold of.

Nevertheless i am sure you get the point as to who we should be looking to deal with in military trading.

Do you see the Indian selling such stuff to China? Their most feared potential enemy?

Electronics & sensors don't have to be the same as we have on our own ships - and note that CVF is to get a Dutch long range radar. The Indians might not even want our sensors, apparently being in love with whatever Israel can produce in this field. I also doubt that the hull is so secret that it's worth not selling to India. After all, they already have two hull designs for STOVL carriers, not counting the old carriers we've sold them in the past.

I don't see much sign of the Chinese 'doing their utmost'. There are many reports of disagreement within the PLAN on the value of carriers to China, & the long time from the acquisition of Varyag until they seriously began work suggests indecisiveness. They've worked pretty slowly since then. No hurry, by the look of it.

 

[Grim901]

Why are we even discussing the Indian sale? It's too late now with the Russian deal being sorted out. 2-3 years ago it might have worked, but we are still talking about a ship that won't launch for another 7-8 years. The first indigenous Indian hulls will probably be in the water by then.

The carriers themselves won't cost much in the grand scheme of things, better just to get them in service with one airgroup available until more money becomes available to get full airwings bought for both.

 

[1805]

Why are we even discussing the Indian sale? It's too late now with the Russian deal being sorted out. 2-3 years ago it might have worked, but we are still talking about a ship that won't launch for another 7-8 years. The first indigenous Indian hulls will probably be in the water by then.

The carriers themselves won't cost much in the grand scheme of things, better just to get them in service with one airgroup available until more money becomes available to get full airwings bought for both.

I think you're right, there is probably a limited market for a 65,000t carrier. I'm not sure if that is a good think or not. Much as it would be good to sell one now and then build a replacement later, I'm not sure I would trust the Government to order a replacement. Although there is a good case for carriers as they are very cheap for their size.

The plus side of selling ships when they have already been built, is that the UK industrial basis does get the work. This approach has kept UK designs in many navies despite out inability to export new. I guess France, Brazil outside bet RAN could be potential buyers.

There is an interesting point about the true decendants of the Colossus/Majestics(built to commerical standard): Carriers or Mistral/BPE LPH? One way the RN might reconnect with the UK population is on the industrial/employment basis. Maybe easier to maintain/or even increase funding. I think Gordon Brown has been postively influenced by where the CVFs are being built.

 

[riksavage]

Janes has released more info reference the possible C1 configeration, as follows:

"The FSC C1 baseline design suggests a ship 141 m-long and displacing 6,850 tonnes. It will be equipped with a low-frequency active variable depth sonar and two launchers for the Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime), firing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile. -

Options include a vertical launch system for Tomahawk or Storm Shadow land-attack missiles, or alternatively a modified M270 guided multiple-launch rocket system. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is also an option, while the main gun will be a 127 mm, 155 mm or refurbished 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mk 8 mount.

Aviation facilities include a flight deck capable of supporting a Chinook helicopter, a hangar for a Merlin-sized helicopter and a smaller hangar for unmanned aerial vehicles. Type 26 will become the lead platform for unmanned vehicles but will not be responsible for their development and procurement.

Below the flight deck, a mission bay and stern dock will hold four 9 m rigid-hull inflatable boats, the towed array sonar and a surface ship torpedo defence system. Alternative options for the mission bay will be examined as this feature is considered a design driver.

The frigate will have an all-electric propulsion system or a hybrid propulsion drive, giving a range of 7,000 n miles at 18 kt. Early concepts indicate a ship's company of 150 personnel plus an embarked maritime force of 36.

Current assumptions call for the construction of up to 10 Type 26 ships, designed as a versatile combatant to protect expeditionary task forces and provide anti-submarine warfare defence."

Two CAAM launches? One assumes these would be split between the bow (as with T23/45) and possibly amidships or maybe even port and starbard, similar to a Canadian Halifax class, thus leaving the fordeck free for the maingun and TacTom/SCALP (StormShadow) or marinised MLRS Launcher? MLRS would be a much cheaper option than TacTom, but lacks the range. However with the carrying capacity of Astute the RN may not require a Rolls Royce deepstrike capability for the T26. It would make the T26 more exportable if they went for SCALP (Produced in Europe, no US export caveats)

At nearly seven thousand tonnes they are up there with your typical Destroyer!

6 T45, 10 T26 and say another 14 C2/3 would not be a bad mix providing enough protection for the ARG leaving enough free for general fly the flag missions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

C1 sounds very simular to the preposed Australian frigate replacement.

7,000T
5" Gun (should be able to take atleast a 4.5" and prob a 155mm as well)
Harpoon
Range and crewing simular

Length appears off, the F-100 hull is 146m long, not 141m. Doesn't currently have a dock aviation ablitities would need a rethink (atleast a merlin or NH-90 + UAV's). But these are the kind of modifications Australia would be looking at anyway. Missile loadouts seem different, Australia looking at SM2/6, ESSM, PAC3 or SM3 (unlikely) for ABM with Tactom for land attack. But missile loadout is very flexable even amoung ships of the same class.

I really hope Aust, RN (and hopefully NZ) put their heads together and build something together that is really very capable. I don't really really care if its based off a F-100 AWD or off T45 type hull (or something fresh), UK building 10, Australia building atleast 8 hopefully NZ jumps in and gets 2 and your talking decent volume to absorb costs in development etc. Even if they use different systems they still might be based off simular hulls.

They still vary a bit, Australia's white paper made them out to be basically destroyer-lites, being as capable as a destroyer, but with a different solid state radar and non AEGIS setup (but still with the 48 VLS tubes). If it incorperated some of these other ideas that the C1 is looking at while still retaining capability the it would appear to be a very powerful ship.

 

[kev 99]

Two CAAM launches? One assumes these would be split between the bow (as with T23/45) and possibly amidships or maybe even port and starbard, similar to a Canadian Halifax class, thus leaving the fordeck free for the maingun and TacTom/SCALP (StormShadow) or marinised MLRS Launcher? MLRS would be a much cheaper option than TacTom, but lacks the range. However with the carrying capacity of Astute the RN may not require a Rolls Royce deepstrike capability for the T26. It would make the T26 more exportable if they went for SCALP (Produced in Europe, no US export caveats)

The model photographs that were doing the rounds last year all showed 2 distinct vls modules at the bow, now obviously the latest concept photos show changes to the superstructure but it's still a case of 2 vls modules for CAMM at the bow.

 

[harryriedl]

Janes has released more info reference the possible C1 configeration, as follows:

"The FSC C1 baseline design suggests a ship 141 m-long and displacing 6,850 tonnes. It will be equipped with a low-frequency active variable depth sonar and two launchers for the Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime), firing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile. -

Options include a vertical launch system for Tomahawk or Storm Shadow land-attack missiles, or alternatively a modified M270 guided multiple-launch rocket system. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is also an option, while the main gun will be a 127 mm, 155 mm or refurbished 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mk 8 mount.

Aviation facilities include a flight deck capable of supporting a Chinook helicopter, a hangar for a Merlin-sized helicopter and a smaller hangar for unmanned aerial vehicles. Type 26 will become the lead platform for unmanned vehicles but will not be responsible for their development and procurement.

Below the flight deck, a mission bay and stern dock will hold four 9 m rigid-hull inflatable boats, the towed array sonar and a surface ship torpedo defence system. Alternative options for the mission bay will be examined as this feature is considered a design driver.

The frigate will have an all-electric propulsion system or a hybrid propulsion drive, giving a range of 7,000 n miles at 18 kt. Early concepts indicate a ship's company of 150 personnel plus an embarked maritime force of 36.

Current assumptions call for the construction of up to 10 Type 26 ships, designed as a versatile combatant to protect expeditionary task forces and provide anti-submarine warfare defence."

Two CAAM launches? One assumes these would be split between the bow (as with T23/45) and possibly amidships or maybe even port and starbard, similar to a Canadian Halifax class, thus leaving the fordeck free for the maingun and TacTom/SCALP (StormShadow) or marinised MLRS Launcher? MLRS would be a much cheaper option than TacTom, but lacks the range. However with the carrying capacity of Astute the RN may not require a Rolls Royce deepstrike capability for the T26. It would make the T26 more exportable if they went for SCALP (Produced in Europe, no US export caveats)

At nearly seven thousand tonnes they are up there with your typical Destroyer!

6 T45, 10 T26 and say another 14 C2/3 would not be a bad mix providing enough protection for the ARG leaving enough free for general fly the flag missions.

just to remind everybody about size inflation on naval vessels this frigate is the size of Dido Light cruiser. seems like a sensible design. Also yesterday their has been new small cruise missile for the F-35 has been announced and an earlier fielding of fireshadow it will be in Afghanistan by 2012.
Jet Trainers, Helos, Missiles Top Latest Round of U.K. Contracts - Defense News

 

[jaffo4011]

slightly off topic,but is there any market for the invincible class carriers?

they seem to be well maintained and would surely be usefull for helicopter ops for smaller nations who cant/dont fly harriers and would provide usefull force projection?

might help offset some costs too......

 

[Sea Toby]

slightly off topic,but is there any market for the invincible class carriers?

they seem to be well maintained and would surely be usefull for helicopter ops for smaller nations who cant/dont fly harriers and would provide usefull force projection?

might help offset some costs too......

Not as light carriers,. The only nation I can think of who might want to buy one is India. Unfortunately, with their Harriers flying beyond their end of life date, they won't. India is either buying or building new short take off and arrested landing carriers for Mig 29s.

However, their might be a few nations that might buy them for usage as a LPH, helicopter assault carriers. However, I don't know of any nation wishing to do so, but in my mind Canada could use one, but won't. Possibly Peru, Chile, and Brazil. I won't add Argentina, but maybe South Africa? Maybe Mexico?

Not many nations, if any really. The major problem is operational costs... Many of these navies don't have the resources to operate them... Invincibles have the same problems as the former US Navy Iwo Jimas. Operational costs.....

 

[riksavage]

The UK would give them away once the QE's are ready and then hopefully benefit indirectly from service life upgrades completed by the likes of Babcock or BAE.

Pakistan might be interested, remove the angled flight deck and use it as an LHP / anti-submarine carrier. They are still useful C&C ships and offer considerable flexibility during humanitarian missions. Not sure what state Thailand's VTOL carrier is in, but they could possibly opt for one? After all the 'Invisibles' have been continuously upgraded, the only issue being the state of the hulls machinery and associated plant.

 

[harryriedl]

The UK would give them away once the QE's are ready and then hopefully benefit indirectly from service life upgrades completed by the likes of Babcock or BAE.

Pakistan might be interested, remove the angled flight deck and use it as an LHP / anti-submarine carrier. They are still useful C&C ships and offer considerable flexibility during humanitarian missions. Not sure what state Thailand's VTOL carrier is in, but they could possibly opt for one? After all the 'Invisibles' have been continuously upgraded, the only issue being the state of the hulls machinery and associated plant.

the biggest issue its the GT power which makes them quite expensive also don't know how much availability their is for RR Olympus engines. Crewing could also be a an issue 1050 crew could be a big ask for a smaller navy especially when a new LHD as much smaller crew.

 

[swerve]

Olympus GTs were fitted to quite a few ships which are still in service. They're all getting old, though. Dutch Kortenaer (sold on - Greece, UAE), Greek Elli, French F70, Belgian Wielingen (now Bulgarian), Type 22, Dutch L-class (now Chilean), Type 42 & Type 22.

 

[davros]

The bow sections for QE are now being transported to Scotland, Plus the propellers are complete in sweden and work is well in progress here are some pics i have found.

 

[AndrewMI]

Janes has released more info reference the possible C1 configeration, as follows:

"The FSC C1 baseline design suggests a ship 141 m-long and displacing 6,850 tonnes. It will be equipped with a low-frequency active variable depth sonar and two launchers for the Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime), firing the Common Anti-air Modular Missile. -

Options include a vertical launch system for Tomahawk or Storm Shadow land-attack missiles, or alternatively a modified M270 guided multiple-launch rocket system. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is also an option, while the main gun will be a 127 mm, 155 mm or refurbished 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mk 8 mount.

Aviation facilities include a flight deck capable of supporting a Chinook helicopter, a hangar for a Merlin-sized helicopter and a smaller hangar for unmanned aerial vehicles. Type 26 will become the lead platform for unmanned vehicles but will not be responsible for their development and procurement.

Below the flight deck, a mission bay and stern dock will hold four 9 m rigid-hull inflatable boats, the towed array sonar and a surface ship torpedo defence system. Alternative options for the mission bay will be examined as this feature is considered a design driver.

The frigate will have an all-electric propulsion system or a hybrid propulsion drive, giving a range of 7,000 n miles at 18 kt. Early concepts indicate a ship's company of 150 personnel plus an embarked maritime force of 36.

Current assumptions call for the construction of up to 10 Type 26 ships, designed as a versatile combatant to protect expeditionary task forces and provide anti-submarine warfare defence."

Two CAAM launches? One assumes these would be split between the bow (as with T23/45) and possibly amidships or maybe even port and starbard, similar to a Canadian Halifax class, thus leaving the fordeck free for the maingun and TacTom/SCALP (StormShadow) or marinised MLRS Launcher? MLRS would be a much cheaper option than TacTom, but lacks the range. However with the carrying capacity of Astute the RN may not require a Rolls Royce deepstrike capability for the T26. It would make the T26 more exportable if they went for SCALP (Produced in Europe, no US export caveats)

At nearly seven thousand tonnes they are up there with your typical Destroyer!

6 T45, 10 T26 and say another 14 C2/3 would not be a bad mix providing enough protection for the ARG leaving enough free for general fly the flag missions.

Decent enough spec. If 10 are procured and they get the full works of equipment fitted they should be very powerfull vessels. No mention of CIWS...

 

[Grim901]

Decent enough spec. If 10 are procured and they get the full works of equipment fitted they should be very powerfull vessels. No mention of CIWS...

Associated images released show 2 Phalanx (1 of which seems to be in a rather odd position over the mini UAV-sized hangar, restricting its fields of fire.)

And there's CAAM if you're counting that.

 

[Troothsayer]

Updates on the RN website

Astutes first dive video
Royal Navy

HMS Queen Elizabeths huge bow leaves Appledore for Rosyth
All news : RN Live : News and Events : Royal Navy

 

[MrQuintus]

do we know what other blocks are being built at babcock devon?