they may be targeted as close to the FREMM but i bet:
1 - both ships come in at a higher price that anticipated
2 - the T26 will be more expensive (possibly more expensive equipment?)
But who knows....
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
1 - both ships come in at a higher price that anticipated
2 - the T26 will be more expensive (possibly more expensive equipment?)
But who knows....
Indeed. I always liked 'em. They were new when I was a child.
Forgive me if this has been discussed, but was updating them with Sea Dart ever considered? They seem to have been decommissioned rather young, & lasted well with their new owners.
I looked up how long they were in commission with the RN: 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 20, 11 (!) & 14 years. Some spent more years in foreign than RN service.
Really sad as excellent ships, although they did need big crews, but I agree installing Sea Dart on them instead of Exocet would have been better value (or for that matter Ikara on a Leander that already had a helicopter....or even the Tiger/Blake conversions). If they had installed it at the front, they could have put a decent hanger for two big helicopters?.
I did hear there early demise was part of a move away from stream and heavy fuel oil, speeding the early exit of some Leanders and Bristol.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I always thought that putting Sea Dart in place of Sea Slug on that rear deck would always be the way to do it, however if that didn't work, put Exocet in place of Sea Slug, Use the "B" position for Sea Dart (it was designed to be treated as a round of ammunition in a magazine anyway).
Relocate a lot of the stuff in the Superstructure down into the now vacated Sea Slug magazine. This would free up top-weight for a Second Illuminator, Modifications to the hanger arrangements and possibly to replace Sea Cat with Sea Wolf.
A formidable light cruiser (because that is effectively what they were & now the T45's are).
Edit: Carry out a well designed and well executed upgrade plan, and you eliminate the need for 14 T42's, if a small number a still procured (remember the update will cost money that would probably otherwise go to T42) they could hopefully be to T42 B3 standard.
Hopefully the modernisation program would make the ships less manpower intensive, because @ ~470 crew per ship, thats a lot of manpower tied up.
Thinking about it Sea Wolf would have gone well instead of the S/Slug and the missiles could easily have been stored in the tunnel!
Mind Bristol was a good looking ship, I remember a school trip must have been mid 70s seeing her at Portsmouth.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
From memory, the problem with Sea Wolf is that it required something like 30+ tons of electronics placed very high up on the superstructure. Thats why the Sea Wolf Leanders had to lose some gear.
The missile itself was only slightly larger and heavier then Sea Cat. I would assume you'd replace the Sea Cat Launchers one for one with Sea Wolf, and convert the Sea Cat Magazine into a Sea Wolf Magazine. Launchers were one on each beam port and starboard of the Hanger I believe.
Yes that would make sense, although the hanger arrangement was not clever and you would probably have wanted to make this full width.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
So ditch some of the ships boats and move the launchers forwards.
Nice photo, looks so much nicer with the both twins foward. It mentions an explosion was that an engine fire?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
No idea, I googled it and grabbed the first decent image I found. Image was from the Wikipedia page for the ship, i'd suggest looking there for more information.
I cant see why you couldnt store and load Sea Dart horizontally, a lighter launcher at the back and feed the missile onto the rail that way. Some of those heavy US cruisers did it with TALOS, and that was massive
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaeDP4p1qZI&feature=related[/nomedia].
If we were going to keep the 8 Counties and adaped launcher would have made sense possibly. Sea Dart is smaller than Sea Slug so a decent amount could be carried in less space, perhaps freeing up some of the magazine hall for electronics compartments to perhaps fit Sea Wolf. Maybe no need for Exocet if they had Sea Dart, and use one of the 4.5 gun spaces for a Sea Dart/Wolf tracker.
Crew size must have been an issue and once the Big Carriers were going the RN wanted out of the Steam game ASAP into the 1980's, however if the steam powered CVA01 had appeared there may have been a case for keeping the technology going until the 90's?
The Counties could take more extra top weight than a Leander, & wouldn't they lose some high up weight with the removal of Sea Slug?. The crew size is a problem, though. Any conversion would have to reduce it.
Interesting idea re replacing B turret by Sea Dart. Would there have been room for the below deck equipment?
Bristol was kept going until 1991, & is still in service as a training ship - but immobile, I think.
Those who live in glass houses .......
On more than one occasion I believe you have claimed that the full load displacement of the T23 is '4900 tonnes' having gained this unlikely number from a MOD website . Before you repeat that again I'd advise you consult the definitive guild to modern warships & navy's - Janes Fighting Ships (any edition) or Norman Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates and see what they have to say on the matter . I do hope that you will avoid claiming that information gleaned from the internet must be inherently more accurate than something written down in a mere book !
On the broader issue you do realize that a warship seldom (if ever) actually displaces any of the official figures attributed to it . Full load or standard , fueled or unfueled the true displacement of any ship is a constantly moving target and your bewildering objection to my shorthand of rounding up a displacement number by a few percent is the very height of statistical folly .
Just my opinion , but I feel that getting bogged down in nick-picking rubbish like this is the death of proper debate .
PS - the above post is a humour free zone , never let it be said I don't comply with the rules .
Last edited:
You are right though, the County's have a certain appeal others just don’t, they look hard if you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, loved my time on Glamorgan but suspect that any updates would have been fairly expensive although Chile managed some changes to her counties although nothing as ambitious as fitting Seadart.
I do think that the present trend for fitting weapons silos lends its self to upgrades and fitting plenty of them is the right move for future ships as is adequate space and a full range of weapons as per the counties. Yes I know this is expensive but it is cheaper than building more to replace losses.
Agreed, loved my time on Glamorgan but suspect that any updates would have been fairly expensive although Chile managed some changes to her counties although nothing as ambitious as fitting Seadart.
I do think that the present trend for fitting weapons silos lends its self to upgrades and fitting plenty of them is the right move for future ships as is adequate space and a full range of weapons as per the counties. Yes I know this is expensive but it is cheaper than building more to replace losses.
The Island mock up for the CVF's are active on cowes good to see artisan working
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/15A3C95B-024F-4A4D-A73E-1E5CC26592A0/0/desider_25_June10V1.pdf page 13
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/15A3C95B-024F-4A4D-A73E-1E5CC26592A0/0/desider_25_June10V1.pdf page 13
Construction of HMS Prince of Wales to be put on hold ?
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 20,000 jobs at risk from RAF base closure
'A £5billion project to build two new aircraft carriers in Fife and on the Clyde is also being targeted in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) as ministers try to balance the books.
The Sunday Express has learned that one option will be to delay the second ship by several years, putting thousands of jobs on hold.'
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 20,000 jobs at risk from RAF base closure
'A £5billion project to build two new aircraft carriers in Fife and on the Clyde is also being targeted in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) as ministers try to balance the books.
The Sunday Express has learned that one option will be to delay the second ship by several years, putting thousands of jobs on hold.'
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Doubtful, the last time they extended the project by 12 months it resulted in a 25% cost increase.
A senior industry source said: “I think the SDR is kicking around several alternatives.
“One is to fit the second ship with a catapult so you don’t need to buy short take-off and landing Joint Strike Fighters but conventional aircraft.
“The plan would also be accompanied by slipping the second ship considerably to the right [delaying it] by a few years. You could also make the carrier a helicopter carrier replacing HMS Ocean.”
"Peter Felstead, editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “The option to have the second CVF as a helicopter platform does make more sense."
Well... while using one of the pair as a helicopter carrier when it's not in refit is a reasonable idea and seems to be the current plan, that won't be very often. The idea of putting catapult(s?) on the second build is crazy talk... unless, that is...
Queen Elizabeth is commissioned as a helicopter carrier with what Harriers are left at that point, if any.
POW comes on stream quite a few years later after a budgetary delay but the delay allowing design changes, fitting of CATOBAR and delivery of a shiny new airgroup of conventional jets, and not necessarily F35 either ... e.g. something less expensive to fund the CATOBAR costs.
Then when Queen Elizabeth undergoes first major refit she too is retrofitted as CATOBAR.
This could be quite appealing financially as it delays the funding of the aircraft by 5+ years as well as creating potential for less expensive aircraft to be acquired, and ensuring interoperability with US and French carriers.
Hmmm...
... and as an aside, regarding "Kinloss has the upper hand as it would make a suitable base for the new Joint Strike Fighter", I wonder how this position was arrived at? Lossiemouth is a fast jet base, whereas Kinloss is smaller (one runway instead of two) without fast jet facilities (dispersed hangars, weapons storage etc). Perhaps Lossiemouth is more suitable to close because its land is more valuable, or (conspiracy theory) because it is actually the more suitable base of the two???
If Lossiemouth closes, I don't see how Kinloss could last for long afterwards.
Last edited:
citizen578
New Member
Am I the only one partly perplexed by the frequent references (sometimes by people from the defence/defence industry sector) about having one of the two QEs as a ''helicopter carrier/HMS Ocean replacement''.
Firstly, I don't see the need for a replacement for Ocean. She's still a young ship, of proven utility and relevance to the RN, and is perfectly appropriate for our overall amphib force. I don't see the point in retireing her, and replaceing with a 65 000 tonne carrier costing £1.5-2Bn (especially bearing in mind Ocean's cheap-as-chips original price).
Is it not inherent in the design that the ships can operate helicopters, in large numbers, already. What is the point in redesignating the entire vessel, and therefore limiting it's capabilities.
Lastly, how exactly might the scenario differ from the RN's current doctrine. We already have a situation of operating one carrier in the strike role, and the other being optimised for 'commando'/amphib support.
...or could it be that the papers, God bless them, simply twist everything to meet this fall-back controversy.
Note the lack of question marks.
It's about time someone let Murdoch and Co know about the £12bn price tag for the RAF's 14 A330s. Perhaps that might tkae the heat off of the carriers.
Firstly, I don't see the need for a replacement for Ocean. She's still a young ship, of proven utility and relevance to the RN, and is perfectly appropriate for our overall amphib force. I don't see the point in retireing her, and replaceing with a 65 000 tonne carrier costing £1.5-2Bn (especially bearing in mind Ocean's cheap-as-chips original price).
Is it not inherent in the design that the ships can operate helicopters, in large numbers, already. What is the point in redesignating the entire vessel, and therefore limiting it's capabilities.
Lastly, how exactly might the scenario differ from the RN's current doctrine. We already have a situation of operating one carrier in the strike role, and the other being optimised for 'commando'/amphib support.
...or could it be that the papers, God bless them, simply twist everything to meet this fall-back controversy.
Note the lack of question marks.
It's about time someone let Murdoch and Co know about the £12bn price tag for the RAF's 14 A330s. Perhaps that might tkae the heat off of the carriers.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Only one problem with that Hypothesis. Super Hornet at current prices is roughly the same cost as the current projected cost of F-35A, however i'm not 100% sure what the projected cost of F-35B is.
Rafale is currently something like double the cost of super hornet per aircraft.
Gripen is currently *not* a Naval aircraft.
See a problem here?
Rafale is currently something like double the cost of super hornet per aircraft.
Gripen is currently *not* a Naval aircraft.
See a problem here?