The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[deepsixteen]

Agreed. Long term this makes sense. Over a 30-35 year life of a sub (hence a 35 year building cycle) construction of at least 8 SSN's and 4 SSBN's seems a reasonable number (one every 3 years or so).

The fact that there has been a gap of nearly a decade between Vanguard unit 4 and Astute unit 1 is potentially disasterous. If that gap was cut down to 3 years there would be 10 Astutes and probbably at a lower cost than we are paying for 7. These mistakes cannot be allowed to happen again.

Touch wood the T45 mistakes will not happen on T-26. Having only 6 T45 units could well be problematic in the future.

Certainly agree with you, I believe that the Astute life cycle which has no refuel requirement will achieve a slight increase in availability over its 25 to 30 year life provided that they are not overworked by cutting numbers of SSN's further.

I hope that Type 26 is sorted and the drum beat approach certainly seems to produce benefits for both the military and industry so all in all I hope we will end up with a well rounded fleet.

I am a little concerned that the RFA is being neglected in the present scheme of things does anyone know what is happening in regard to replacement units.

 

[Grim901]

MARS was scheduled to replace a lot of the RFA fleet, that got put on hold by the last government in 2008 (I think?), it'll probably be addressed and retendered after SDR is released now. One thing to note was that we offered the contract out to international shipbuilders too for the first time I believe so it could come in as quite a cheap contract with some innovative desgins coming forward, for once BAE won't have full control.

 

[AndrewMI]

Potentially disastrous? I'd argue that it has been disastrous. The Astute programme is way over budget and massively behind thanks mostly to loss of skills due to the gap in orders.

It is hard to disagree with you.

I believe it will only be disasterous if the additional units are needed in the future, and they have not been built.

 

[AndrewMI]

Certainly agree with you, I believe that the Astute life cycle which has no refuel requirement will achieve a slight increase in availability over its 25 to 30 year life provided that they are not overworked by cutting numbers of SSN's further.

I hope that Type 26 is sorted and the drum beat approach certainly seems to produce benefits for both the military and industry so all in all I hope we will end up with a well rounded fleet.

I am a little concerned that the RFA is being neglected in the present scheme of things does anyone know what is happening in regard to replacement units.

It is quite easy to work out the drumbeat for the submarines. There is only one yard and two distinct types of sub!

With surface ships it is harder. If we were looking to launch a new "warship" ecery year (i.e. a destroyer/frigate size ship) tha would lead to a force of 25 or so escorts. Would this be an appropriate number? (T45, T27 and T27?).

When factoring in the occasional large ship such as CV, or LPH/LHD etc. it becomes more complicated....

 

[PeterCrisp]

This may be a stupid question but what's stopping the government from ordering more type 45's? Would it be possible to use it as a starting point for a newer ship with only fairly minor changes just to bring it more up to date if we ordered more in 3 or 4 years?

 

[AndrewMI]

This may be a stupid question but what's stopping the government from ordering more type 45's? Would it be possible to use it as a starting point for a newer ship with only fairly minor changes just to bring it more up to date if we ordered more in 3 or 4 years?

I think this has been covered before.

Money aside, i think the practical problems are that the shipbuilding facilities that made the superblocks have moved onto other projects (notably the CVF) and therefore setting up the "production line" again would be costly.

In addition the various suppliers etc may have gone bust, moved or whatever.

In short it would be rather hard to achieve.

 

[Moonstone]

The RN at most will field 1 x Merlin and 1 x Wildcat/UAV. Can't see the logic or need to field 2 x Merlin on a T26 unless engaged in a full-on shooting war requiring 24-7 manned rotary AsW coverage. The future will be UAV driven, so stick with the plan - 1 x Merlin/Wildcat + rotary UAV in a dog kennel.

With the rise in unmanned rotary craft, the only advantage manned platforms bring is the ability to ferry personnel ship-to-shore/ship-to-ship and provide a fast ropping platform during a boarding.

Agreed .

But operating two entirely different helicopters types (with duplicated support/training/ spares arrangements etc) aboard the same frigate seems a tad extravagant in a era when the MOD may be facing massive budget cuts for the foreseeable future . Yes it's nice to have a large hanger just in case it might come in handy some day , but in the midst of the gravest economic crisis in our post war history perhaps we should be concentrating more on the essential 'must haves' rather than the peripheral 'nice to haves' when designing the next generation of RN warships .

After crewing costs and fueling the main engines are taken into account I suspect that running the helicopter must be far and away the most expensive element in the day-to-day operating costs of a frigate - I remain skeptical (to put it mildly) that the RN will in practice regularly operate two Merlins (or a Merlin & a Wildcat) from any of its frigates . The vastly more economical option of basing a single Lynx Wildcat aboard most of our frigates & destroyers seems a far more likely outcome to me .

For that matter I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the entire T26 'Combat Ship' programme canceled before very long and a more modestly specified frigate design substituted in its place . This ship was born under the previous government remember - not the current administration who may well take an entirely different view on this designs affordability .

I'm far from convinced that would necessarily be a bad idea .

 

[Systems Adict]

.... One thing to note was that we offered the contract out to international shipbuilders too for the first time I believe so it could come in as quite a cheap contract with some innovative designs coming forward, for once BAE won't have full control.

Harumph.... !

FYI BAE was at the lead in a consortium with BMT & one of the Asian yards in the ilk of Hyundai Heavy Industries. (see link to Richard Beedall's site & direct quote from the page)

Navy Matters | Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability

"Current Situation
On 10 December 2007 the MOD issued an "Invitation to Participate in Dialogue" to industry to for up to six fleet tankers at an expected cost of £800 million, more details are found on that page.
On 21 May 2008 the MOD announced the results of the invitation - four companies have been shortlisted: Fincantieri (Italy); Hyundai (Republic of Korea); Navantia (Spain) and BAE Systems with BMT DSL and DSME (Republic of Korea). Their proposals will now be tested for Value for Money and the MOD is expected to select one of the companies to design and build the new ships in early 2009. None of the four bidders will build the Fleet Tankers in the UK."




...Apart from that, BAE is effectively sole supplier, mainly because of the UK Gov't & partly because VT decided to butt out & run....


SA

 

[deepsixteen]

Agreed .

But operating two entirely different helicopters types (with duplicated support/training/ spares arrangements etc) aboard the same frigate seems a tad extravagant in a era when the MOD may be facing massive budget cuts for the foreseeable future . Yes it's nice to have a large hanger just in case it might come in handy some day , but in the midst of the gravest economic crisis in our post war history perhaps we should be concentrating more on the essential 'must haves' rather than the peripheral 'nice to haves' when designing the next generation of RN warships .

After crewing costs and fueling the main engines are taken into account I suspect that running the helicopter must be far and away the most expensive element in the day-to-day operating costs of a frigate - I remain skeptical (to put it mildly) that the RN will in practice regularly operate two Merlins (or a Merlin & a Wildcat) from any of its frigates . The vastly more economical option of basing a single Lynx Wildcat aboard most of our frigates & destroyers seems a far more likely outcome to me .

For that matter I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the entire T26 'Combat Ship' programme canceled before very long and a more modestly specified frigate design substituted in its place . This ship was born under the previous government remember - not the current administration who may well take an entirely different view on this designs affordability .

I'm far from convinced that would necessarily be a bad idea .

Hi Moonstone

I would like you to answer my earlier post #4294 regarding aircraft facilities and hanger size on the envisioned Type 26 design further to which I would point out that building in flexibility is what all western navies are doing. Incidentally aircraft facilities weapons magazine fuel etc are common and individual aircraft are embarked as are the relevant spares outfits to suit the mission, you would not have to double any facilities other than possibly increasing fuel/weapons capacity.

Regarding the Type 26 being replaced by a more modestly specified design I would like to hear your thought’s on what could be removed from the spec. Personally I think that only having sixteen VLS (check the numbers on comparable vessels) on a modern multi role warship is already way under spec and will considerably restrict the utility of the vessel bearing in mind that full size VLS can launch a wide variety of weapons for example ASM and land attack missiles.

I fully appreciate the present financial state but you should bear in mind that we are talking about a warship that will not come into service until at least the end of the decade and spending little if any money on a proper hanger seems better than a less flexible dog kennel. Fitting additional VLS is a genuine cost increase and if we cannot afford it in the initial buy we should at least build the structure to accommodate up to 64 cells. I genuinely fear we will be creating another batch one Type 42 if we do not build in flexibility.

 

[AndrewMI]

9pm BBC 2 on Sunday. Programme about the construction of Astute.

 

[PeterCrisp]

The Astute was launched on the 8th June 2007 (according to Wiki anyway) and is still in Sea Trials, is that normal for a new sub?
Scratch that I did a quick google and it seems it only put to see in November 2009.

Sorry about that.

 

[Moonstone]

Hi Moonstone

I would like you to answer my earlier post #4294 regarding aircraft facilities and hanger size on the envisioned Type 26 design further to which I would point out that building in flexibility is what all western navies are doing. Incidentally aircraft facilities weapons magazine fuel etc are common and individual aircraft are embarked as are the relevant spares outfits to suit the mission, you would not have to double any facilities other than possibly increasing fuel/weapons capacity.

Regarding the Type 26 being replaced by a more modestly specified design I would like to hear your thought’s on what could be removed from the spec. Personally I think that only having sixteen VLS (check the numbers on comparable vessels) on a modern multi role warship is already way under spec and will considerably restrict the utility of the vessel bearing in mind that full size VLS can launch a wide variety of weapons for example ASM and land attack missiles.

I fully appreciate the present financial state but you should bear in mind that we are talking about a warship that will not come into service until at least the end of the decade and spending little if any money on a proper hanger seems better than a less flexible dog kennel. Fitting additional VLS is a genuine cost increase and if we cannot afford it in the initial buy we should at least build the structure to accommodate up to 64 cells. I genuinely fear we will be creating another batch one Type 42 if we do not build in flexibility.

It has become a given these days that 'steel is cheap' and that as a consequence we can/should design ever larger displacement warships . Perhaps we should stop a while and question the validity of that assumption .

I'm happy to acknowledge I don't have reams of official statistics showing the (inflation adjusted) ebb and flow of the world steel price over the last 50 years but I'm pretty damn sure that bigger ships still cost rather more money & time to weld together than their smaller counterparts . Ship construction has never been an inexpensive business , this reality is highly unlikely to change anytime soon .

The simplistic argument that big=good & small=bad is in itself deeply flawed . Some of the most cost effective ship designs to ever serve the RN have been relatively small and cheap - the 1939 'Hunt' class destroyer or even the current Type 23 for instance . For some roles it is even actively preferable to employ a modestly sized warship - 'Littorial' warfare is all the rage I hear .

When you examine the T23 in detail you start to understand what a fine ship they are . On a 3500t hull you not only get what is generally regarded as one of the finest ASW platforms in the business but you also field a versatile warship with significant surface warfare and adequate self defence capability as well . Why can't we do something similar again ?

My preferred T23 replacement (the RN should aim to order around 15 units IMO)

3500-4000T displacement
Strong seaworthy hull
Machinery capable of long range & quiet operation - 25 kts
1x Merlin or 2x Lynx Wildcat (interchangeable with future small UAV)
TAS & hull sonar
Artisan 3D radar if possible
BAE/Bofors 57mm or Otobreda 76mm gun
CAAM VLS

Perhaps you can't have the above capability on this displacement , but it doesn't seem to be asking for very much more than we already have with the T23 .

I see the future RN frigate and destroyer force as being primarily in the business of providing the QE class carriers and/or an amphibious warfare task force with an escorting squadron - The T45's will obviously provide the AAW missile defence with the 'Sea Viper' system which leaves the T23 successors proper role as providing the crucial ASW screen . The designed armament of the T26 is as yet undefined but why must it have a Tac Tom cruise missile armament for instance when the carriers & SSN's can do that job just as well if not better ? When you think about it sailing one of your handful of precious T26's close inshore for a spot of shore bombardment (with its single 155mm gun) is a dubious proposition indeed when this valuable unit is put at extreme danger and the direct assault of a defended shoreline is surely an historically outdated concept anyway . Again if we really must bombard the territory of our enemys with naval gunfire then we should build a monitor or reinvent the WWII LCG .

I've no principled objection to large hangers or building ships with the deck space required to house some vast 64 missile VLS but it seems pretty hard to justify all this when the helicopters and missiles required to actually make use of these expensive facilities are unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future - if ever .

I hasten to add that the above are just the thoughts of a interested layman - not some professional strategist or naval architect alas .

 

[Grim901]

When you examine the T23 in detail you start to understand what a fine ship they are . On a 3500t hull you not only get what is generally regarded as one of the finest ASW platforms in the business but you also field a versatile warship with significant surface warfare and adequate self defence capability as well . Why can't we do something similar again ?

My preferred T23 replacement (the RN should aim to order around 15 units IMO)

3500-4000T displacement
Strong seaworthy hull
Machinery capable of long range & quiet operation - 25 kts
1x Merlin or 2x Lynx Wildcat (interchangeable with future small UAV)
TAS & hull sonar
Artisan 3D radar if possible
BAE/Bofors 57mm or Otobreda 76mm gun
CAAM VLS

I see the future RN frigate and destroyer force as being primarily in the business of providing the QE class carriers and/or an amphibious warfare task force with an escorting squadron - The T45's will obviously provide the AAW missile defence with the 'Sea Viper' system which leaves the T23 successors proper role as providing the crucial ASW screen . The designed armament of the T26 is as yet undefined but why must it have a Tac Tom cruise missile armament for instance when the carriers & SSN's can do that job just as well if not better ? When you think about it sailing one of your handful of precious T26's close inshore for a spot of shore bombardment (with its single 155mm gun) is a dubious proposition indeed when this valuable unit is put at extreme danger and the direct assault of a defended shoreline is surely an historically outdated concept anyway . Again if we really must bombard the territory of our enemys with naval gunfire then we should build a monitor or reinvent the WWII LCG .

I've no principled objection to large hangers or building ships with the deck space required to house some vast 64 missile VLS but it seems pretty hard to justify all this when the helicopters and missiles required to actually make use of these expensive facilities are unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future - if ever .

I hasten to add that the above are just the thoughts of a interested layman - not some professional strategist or naval architect alas .

Ok a couple of points here;

1) What is your answer to the need for more power necessary for modern equipment that requires more or larger power plants? Similarly what happens when in 15 years other systems need to be added to your ship? One thing the RN has learnt is that space is incredibly useful and you can't always forsee how much you may need to add to a vessel over its life.

2) You've managed to add 2 new weapons to this ship that the RN doesn't operate when a plethora of weapons it DOES operate and are being installed on new ships would work just as well. You've also left off Harpoon, a valuable weapon on T23 and one that doesn't exist on any other fleet unit.

3) As has been mentioned several times here, you are ignoring the fast that Carrier ASW protection is NOT the T26's sole role, it is simply one of them. The vessel will be multirole and so needs to be bigger and more versatile than the vessel it replaces. No point in arguing, that is simply what the MOD has decided it needs. And a separate class for other bits as you suggest would be even more expensive and illogical.

4) If anything the Carriers and SSNs are much more precious than a T26 and so it makes sense to put Tactom ability on them. The t26 will also spends extended periods operating alone and may not have the benefit of being able to simply swap its duties with an SSN or Carrier (with full Carrier Group in tow = expensive and possibly pointless depending on the target.). You also argue against yourself by saying it is silly to put a ship in danger by going into the shore to use a 155mm cannon at the same time as saying that Tactom is pointless on the T26. If the shore is too dangerous, use the Tactoms to clear the way.

5) Shore bombardment is not outdated. Where do people get this idea from? There is a reason why so many navies still have that big blasty thing at the front of their ships. We last used ours in 2003 as the Marines went into Al-Faw I believe.

6) 64 missiles isn't vast. The USN has vessels with 120+ cells aboard, now that is vast. And the missiles to put in them either already exist or are well on their way thanks to continued development. Team Complex Weapons has lots of interesting (and funded) weapons being designed. Where did you get the notion that we don't have any missiles to put in the cells? I know you're a laymen but so are most people here and its rare to see ideas like that being plucked out of thin air.

 

[kev 99]

I'd also argue that the point that one of our SSNs can be more effective in deploying TacToms than a surface vessel; our SSNs can only launch 6 at a time through Torpedo tubes before they need to be re-loaded, while it's certainly true that they can fire and disappear again they can't carry out the sort of devastating barrage that a ship with 24 vls could.

I'd say it's fairly doubtful though if the RN would ever have the budget available to deploy LACMs across it's surface fleet, which I think is more than a little daft.

I'd have to say I also find it more than a little odd that people are advocating the RN replaces T22/T23 on a kind of like for like basis, the threat simply isn't there for a requirement for a fleet of one mission only ASW Frigates. The Cold War is over and the RN needs vessels that are capable of fulfilling a wide variety of roles, other navies from around the world are procuring more multi mission vessels to replace their Cold War fleets, just as the RN needs to.

 

[Moonstone]

Ok a couple of points here;

1) What is your answer to the need for more power necessary for modern equipment that requires more or larger power plants? Similarly what happens when in 15 years other systems need to be added to your ship? One thing the RN has learnt is that space is incredibly useful and you can't always forsee how much you may need to add to a vessel over its life.

2) You've managed to add 2 new weapons to this ship that the RN doesn't operate when a plethora of weapons it DOES operate and are being installed on new ships would work just as well. You've also left off Harpoon, a valuable weapon on T23 and one that doesn't exist on any other fleet unit.

3) As has been mentioned several times here, you are ignoring the fast that Carrier ASW protection is NOT the T26's sole role, it is simply one of them. The vessel will be multirole and so needs to be bigger and more versatile than the vessel it replaces. No point in arguing, that is simply what the MOD has decided it needs. And a separate class for other bits as you suggest would be even more expensive and illogical.

4) If anything the Carriers and SSNs are much more precious than a T26 and so it makes sense to put Tactom ability on them. The t26 will also spends extended periods operating alone and may not have the benefit of being able to simply swap its duties with an SSN or Carrier (with full Carrier Group in tow = expensive and possibly pointless depending on the target.). You also argue against yourself by saying it is silly to put a ship in danger by going into the shore to use a 155mm cannon at the same time as saying that Tactom is pointless on the T26. If the shore is too dangerous, use the Tactoms to clear the way.

5) Shore bombardment is not outdated. Where do people get this idea from? There is a reason why so many navies still have that big blasty thing at the front of their ships. We last used ours in 2003 as the Marines went into Al-Faw I believe.

6) 64 missiles isn't vast. The USN has vessels with 120+ cells aboard, now that is vast. And the missiles to put in them either already exist or are well on their way thanks to continued development. Team Complex Weapons has lots of interesting (and funded) weapons being designed. Where did you get the notion that we don't have any missiles to put in the cells? I know you're a laymen but so are most people here and its rare to see ideas like that being plucked out of thin air.

Thank you . In the same spirit I'll reply with a few points of my own :

1 - The ship I propose would require a similar generating capacity to existing designs , I see little or no evidence that a 'step change' in electrical power generation is required at this time unless the RN is to field some futuristic laser weapon . These expensive (1970's 'Leander Class' like) mid life rearmings you propose just don't happen here anymore - haven't you noticed ?

2 - Yes my frigate will require some new weapon systems - is updating the technology not a perfectly normal part of the evolution of any new design ? The trouble will SSM's such as Harpoon (a 40 year old design in the 2020's btw) is that everyone has them - a 7000t destroyer or a 400t FAC . If you happen to be in the larger (massively more valuable) ship you really don't want to be swapping missiles with a flotilla of expendable FAC do you ?. By all means arm your escorts with SSM's (if you can find the deck space & budget) but enemy surface units should primarily be countered by strike aircraft/helicopters at long range or by SSN's - both of which the future RN will field (he says hopefully)

3 - Yes the RN has decided it would like to replace its perfectly adequate 3500t ASW frigates with 7000t multi-role destroyer/cruisers please . I say (FWIW) we'll probably never be able afford enough of them to make that a very good or realistic idea . I'm happy to accept that others take a different view on this .

4 - If we didn't have two formidable aircraft carriers , 5-7 'Astute' class SSN's & the whole bleedin' RAF to do the job then it might make sense to arm every frigate & destroyer in the navy with a 'nice to have' battery of cruise missiles . But we do so it doesn't .

5 - If your future task force has a substantial capacity to bombard the enemy at long range with devastatingly accurate LGB's & tactical cruise missiles from its own organic airpower then adding a few 155mm rounds into the mix seems to fall into the category of 'nice to have' again rather than 'must have' . A 'D-Day' style assault on a heavily defended shoreline is about as likely to make a 21st century reappearance as a cavalry charge or a mass parachute drop .

6 - The RN doesn't quite have the same procurement budget as the USN !

How much per unit does a Aster 30 missile (for instance) cost ?
How many do we have on order ?

I don't think the answers to the above questions are in the public domain , but in dismissing the possibility that the RN's inventory of missiles is perhaps not quite as generous as we all would like you take a more optimistic view on MOD procurement policy than I do .

 

[StevoJH]

Thank you . In the same spirit I'll reply with a few points of my own :

1 - The ship I propose would require a similar generating capacity to existing designs , I see little or no evidence that a 'step change' in electrical power generation is required at this time unless the RN is to field some futuristic laser weapon . These expensive (1970's 'Leander Class' like) mid life rearmings you propose just don't happen here anymore - haven't you noticed ?

I must have missed that.

2 - Yes my frigate will require some new weapon systems - is updating the technology not a perfectly normal part of the evolution of any new design ? The trouble will SSM's such as Harpoon (a 40 year old design in the 2020's btw) is that everyone has them - a 7000t destroyer or a 400t FAC . If you happen to be in the larger (massively more valuable) ship you really don't want to be swapping missiles with a flotilla of expendable FAC do you ?. By all means arm your escorts with SSM's (if you can find the deck space & budget) but enemy surface units should primarily be countered by strike aircraft/helicopters at long range or by SSN's - both of which the future RN will field (he says hopefully)

Harpoon also has a land attack mode in the current versions.
Helicopters and Aircraft are the best solutions, but in some weather conditions may be unavailable, or may be unavailable if the ship is deployed alone.

3 - Yes the RN has decided it would like to replace its perfectly adequate 3500t ASW frigates with 7000t multi-role destroyer/cruisers please . I say (FWIW) we'll probably never be able afford enough of them to make that a very good or realistic idea . I'm happy to accept that others take a different view on this .

Yes, because they are now focused on expeditionary roles and anti-piracy operations, rather then trying to defend the north atlantic against the Red banner Nothern Fleet. When you are talking about out of area ops, bigger is better. More comfortable, larger range, less likely to take damage etc.

There is a reason the British Empire was policed using 6,000-10,000t cruisers.

4 - If we didn't have two formidable aircraft carriers , 5-7 'Astute' class SSN's & the whole bleedin' RAF to do the job then it might make sense to arm every frigate & destroyer in the navy with a 'nice to have' battery of cruise missiles . But we do so it doesn't .

Not real useful if they are 3000nm away back in the UK and a priority target comes up.

5 - If your future task force has a substantial capacity to bombard the enemy at long range with devastatingly accurate LGB's & tactical cruise missiles from its own organic airpower then adding a few 155mm rounds into the mix seems to fall into the category of 'nice to have' again rather than 'must have' . A 'D-Day' style assault on a heavily defended shoreline is about as likely to make a 21st century reappearance as a cavalry charge or a mass parachute drop .

Err, you want to waste the scarce number of F-35B's on bombing the beaches rather then hitting targets inland such as highways, bridges and airbases? You want to rely on a very small number of tomahawks on submarines which require the submarine to exit the AOR to reload to suppress beach defenses rather then using artillery on board ships?

You are comparing a ship with several hundred rounds of ammunition with a submarine with maybe 12 tomahawks that each cost 15 times as much as a single excaliber round which would do the same amount of damage.

6 - The RN doesn't quite have the same procurement budget as the USN !

Your point? no one does, yet Australia (with 1/3 britains defense budget) is getting 100 F-35A, just got 24 F-18F, has ordered two LHD's and 3 7,000t AWD's and is planning 8 7,000t Destroyers. Plus ordered ~45 MRH-90's, 22 Tiger ARH and is looking are ordering 20-30 new Maritime Helicopters.....

How much per unit does a Aster 30 missile (for instance) cost ?
How many do we have on order ?

Google it. Its probably on hansard or on the MBDA website.

I don't think the answers to the above questions are in the public domain , but in dismissing the possibility that the RN's inventory of missiles is perhaps not quite as generous as we all would like you take a more optimistic view on MOD procurement policy than I do .

Well, the RAF ordered 900 Storm Shadows....I wouldn't be surprised if its larger then you think....

 

[1805]

It has become a given these days that 'steel is cheap' and that as a consequence we can/should design ever larger displacement warships . Perhaps we should stop a while and question the validity of that assumption .

I'm happy to acknowledge I don't have reams of official statistics showing the (inflation adjusted) ebb and flow of the world steel price over the last 50 years but I'm pretty damn sure that bigger ships still cost rather more money & time to weld together than their smaller counterparts . Ship construction has never been an inexpensive business , this reality is highly unlikely to change anytime soon .

The simplistic argument that big=good & small=bad is in itself deeply flawed . Some of the most cost effective ship designs to ever serve the RN have been relatively small and cheap - the 1939 'Hunt' class destroyer or even the current Type 23 for instance . For some roles it is even actively preferable to employ a modestly sized warship - 'Littorial' warfare is all the rage I hear .

When you examine the T23 in detail you start to understand what a fine ship they are . On a 3500t hull you not only get what is generally regarded as one of the finest ASW platforms in the business but you also field a versatile warship with significant surface warfare and adequate self defence capability as well . Why can't we do something similar again ?

My preferred T23 replacement (the RN should aim to order around 15 units IMO)

3500-4000T displacement
Strong seaworthy hull
Machinery capable of long range & quiet operation - 25 kts
1x Merlin or 2x Lynx Wildcat (interchangeable with future small UAV)
TAS & hull sonar
Artisan 3D radar if possible
BAE/Bofors 57mm or Otobreda 76mm gun
CAAM VLS

Perhaps you can't have the above capability on this displacement , but it doesn't seem to be asking for very much more than we already have with the T23 .

I see the future RN frigate and destroyer force as being primarily in the business of providing the QE class carriers and/or an amphibious warfare task force with an escorting squadron - The T45's will obviously provide the AAW missile defence with the 'Sea Viper' system which leaves the T23 successors proper role as providing the crucial ASW screen . The designed armament of the T26 is as yet undefined but why must it have a Tac Tom cruise missile armament for instance when the carriers & SSN's can do that job just as well if not better ? When you think about it sailing one of your handful of precious T26's close inshore for a spot of shore bombardment (with its single 155mm gun) is a dubious proposition indeed when this valuable unit is put at extreme danger and the direct assault of a defended shoreline is surely an historically outdated concept anyway . Again if we really must bombard the territory of our enemys with naval gunfire then we should build a monitor or reinvent the WWII LCG .

I've no principled objection to large hangers or building ships with the deck space required to house some vast 64 missile VLS but it seems pretty hard to justify all this when the helicopters and missiles required to actually make use of these expensive facilities are unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future - if ever .

I hasten to add that the above are just the thoughts of a interested layman - not some professional strategist or naval architect alas .

I couldn't agree more, you have excellently applied logic to emotional arguements based around "we must have as they have them". Just to add weight to your already comprehensive argument:

USN aside, other navies have massive budget pressures aswell, lets see how many of this "Spurance" inspired ships get built.

The additional of "nice to haves" on to an ASW escort will detract from its core role of keeping SSKs away from other assets, by reducing the numbers that get built.

The agrument that a CV or SSN will not be around is so poor. The conflicts we have been involved with, we always deploy a task force of some size.

For an ASW asset there is no need for more than 32 SAMs,based on the expenditure of SAMs in the Falklands, a very unlikely senario. Actually 16-24 would be sufficient with a 57mm gun (this excellent weapon is far more useful and a 1/3 the weight of a 4.5").

I probably would fit Harpoon maybe 4, but agree it is very unlikely these would ever have a target.

Oh and if a F35 was not around for support of troops ashore, because it was doing more important "bridge busting" we could use an Apache. There is going to be so much room on those carriers, the whole AAC can come along.

 

[swerve]

When you examine the T23 in detail you start to understand what a fine ship they are . On a 3500t hull you not only get what is generally regarded as one of the finest ASW platforms in the business but you also field a versatile warship with significant surface warfare and adequate self defence capability as well . Why can't we do something similar again ?

My preferred T23 replacement (the RN should aim to order around 15 units IMO)

3500-4000T displacement
Strong seaworthy hull
Machinery capable of long range & quiet operation - 25 kts
1x Merlin or 2x Lynx Wildcat (interchangeable with future small UAV)
TAS & hull sonar
Artisan 3D radar if possible
BAE/Bofors 57mm or Otobreda 76mm gun
CAAM VLS

According to the RN, full load displacement of Type 23 is 4900 tons.

I think you could fit that lot on a 4000 ton ship, with the possible exception of 2 AW159, though I'm not sure you could fit much more.. Compromising on top speed, as you suggest, should allow a good range, & I see you're also proposing lighter non-ASW armament than on T23.

Very much like the DCNS FM400 design.

Feasible - yes, I'm sure. Whether it's appropriate for the RN is another discussion.

 

[Hambo]

Moonstone "5 - If your future task force has a substantial capacity to bombard the enemy at long range with devastatingly accurate LGB's & tactical cruise missiles from its own organic airpower then adding a few 155mm rounds into the mix seems to fall into the category of 'nice to have' again rather than 'must have' . A 'D-Day' style assault on a heavily defended shoreline is about as likely to make a 21st century reappearance as a cavalry charge or a mass parachute drop ."

Is NGS usefull?

Operation Barras. I believe the rebel base was 40miles from Freetown (the coast) A 4.5" weapon would be useless but one of those proposed 155mm systems could reach it with some guided munitions, thats a good precision option to have.

Suppressing enemy coatal defences such as radar, AAA and SAM sites.Taking out enemy OP'S, airstrips, supply bases, HQ's, bridges, powerplants or distribution networks.

Covering the withdrawal of special forces with some heavy fire, breaking up a pursuing enemy mechanised unit with some anto armour rounds. Covering an amphibious landing eg GW2. Breaking up an approaching wave of "boghammers"?

Or could a 155mm weapon be used to lay a chaff or decoy cloud? Or how about good old fashion ship sinking where you dont wan to waste a million pound Harpoon.

I can see ample reasons why a decent sized naval gun is useful. If T45 sits next to the carrier, its a decent option to have on a dozen or so ships, an it should be relatively cheap, a fair bit of design work has been done. ER Laser guded or GPS rounds could give the RN a precision 100km sniper capability, thats not to be sniffed at.

 

[1805]

I think this has been covered before.

Money aside, i think the practical problems are that the shipbuilding facilities that made the superblocks have moved onto other projects (notably the CVF) and therefore setting up the "production line" again would be costly.

In addition the various suppliers etc may have gone bust, moved or whatever.

In short it would be rather hard to achieve.

I'm not sure I buy this argument. Ships are not mass produced items, with production lines and dedicated machinery/presstools or certainly not the T45s? There