The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[weasel1962]

Re:

That's the point. Assault ships have limited CV capability so building 3 sacrifices CV capability. If one needs a CV, then build a CV. If one needs an assault ship, then one gets one.

Having 3 LHAs exceeds the amph capability as each can carry a bde's worth. Doesn't make sense to have too much excess. So if one needs a bde's worth only, the other 2 vessels = CVF. Makes sense.

Can't see the RN replacing the ocean with a LHA that costs 12 times more though.

 

[ASFC]

If the budget means losing the Albions, but gaining more T26's then I will be the first to raise my hand. The budget simply won't support the continued operation of 2 x QE's, 2 x Albions and 4 x Bays (Ocean is a given for disposal) and the buying and supporting of a credible amount of C1, 2 & 3 vessels.

I'll keep my hand down thanks-because frankly if the future is working more with our NATO and EU allies, then i'd rather we keep the Albions, especially as many of the smaller NATO/EU navies can provide Escorts for a task force, but few can provide LPDs like the Albions......

Would retiring both Albions actually get more Escorts? Other than saving their operating costs would retiring the LPDs provide the cash for more T26s?

I think Swerve/weasel1962 have covered the other points I was going to bring up.

 

[1805]

If we'd built them, & no Albions, we'd be desperately short of dock space for landing craft. We'd have three big LPH./STOVL carriers, & only the Bays, with their small docks, to put ashore anything that couldn't be carried in a helicopter. We'd go from the current 'plenty of docks, too little hangar space' to the opposite. I'm not convinced that would be an improvement. We'd swap one problem for another.

If you'd suggested that in combination with modified Bays with large docks, & maybe a couple more of 'em, & a modfied LHA-6 design with more flexible space (& of course a skl-jump) so that it could operate in an enhanced carrier mode, I might take the suggestion seriously.

Agreed not a direct copy of the LHA-6 but 3 x 45-50,000t, ideally 25 knots, helicopter/F35b carrier with of course a ski ramp, capable of carrying c50-55 aircraft.

I don't disagree with the usefulness of the Bays/Albions but 6 docks was a huge leap forwards on just 2 before, if we can only afford 4 thats still an improvement. That said I can only see minimal savings if selling them now they have been built. This is all what if now, although they must be very attractive to many navies.

 

[swerve]

1) Fair enough. I can see the arguments for that, though I don't think they're strong enough to convince me it's the best option..

2) It's not just the number of docks, but their size. The docks on the LPDs can each hold as many LCUs as all four docks on the LSDs combined. Disposing of the LPDs would be to get rid of two thirds of the dock capacity, not one third.

In terms of dock capacity, the Bays offer less, not more, than Fearless & Intrepid did: one LCU each, vs four in each Fearless class. They're mainly transport ships, not assault ships, & it shows.

 

[1805]

1) Fair enough. I can see the arguments for that, though I don't think they're strong enough to convince me it's the best option..

2) It's not just the number of docks, but their size. The docks on the LPDs can each hold as many LCUs as all four docks on the LSDs combined. Disposing of the LPDs would be to get rid of two thirds of the dock capacity, not one third.

In terms of dock capacity, the Bays offer less, not more, than Fearless & Intrepid did: one LCU each, vs four in each Fearless class. They're mainly transport ships, not assault ships, & it shows.

Its the problem with retrospectively remodelling a fleet. I see very few real savings from disposals, however I have always assumed it would be a couple of Bays going not Bulwark & ALbion.

If they are to reduce the logistics/troop lift capability. I would love to see more arrangements similar to the Points. This may seem a bit random but my Mother is going on a Saga cruise (I know you're all pleased for her) and I was just reading the brochure when I noticed they operated 2 ships c25,000t one of which was the last liner built in a UK yard (Cammell Laird 1973). OBVIOUSLY NOT in a the current financial mess, but we could come to a deal with a subsidy for access/UK crew to build say 2-3 replacements. Moderate changes to a passenger design to allow a couple of helicopter pads to be quickly added. The military angle avoiding EU subsidy issues, no reason why DWP can't provide the cash as it would create employement. First one would probably be very painful as we haven't built for 40 years, but it could get the UK back into the business and provide access to troop transport/hospital ships. I know wishful thinking but it is late

 

[StevoJH]

I suggested something those lines a while ago except for tankers and container ships and was told it would be illegal because of subsidy legislation. I don't see how this would be different.

However cruise ship's designed to be reconfigured into a hospital ships and Tankers and Container ships designed to be reconfigured into RFA style replenishment ships would definately be good investments in my opinions if they could be subsidised to be built in UK yards.

 

[1805]

I suggested something those lines a while ago except for tankers and container ships and was told it would be illegal because of subsidy legislation. I don't see how this would be different.

However cruise ship's designed to be reconfigured into a hospital ships and Tankers and Container ships designed to be reconfigured into RFA style replenishment ships would definately be good investments in my opinions if they could be subsidised to be built in UK yards.

In theory yes but you look at the hidden support for Italian/German ship building I think we could get away with it. If the number of RFAs is reduced to say 6-8 I think a similar number of tankers as Points would be a great idea. Key is if they are a real reserve available in an emergency then I think it would work for both sides.

 

[harryriedl]

as everyone seems to be talking about cuts to equipment (which i remain forever hopeful and hope backroom stuff will do without sacrificing combat power)
A replacement for Endurence has been leased with a possible buy later
HMS Endurance to be replaced - Portsmouth Today

HMS Endurance to be replaced
Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.
Options
Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The News site.
Subscribe
Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.
Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

« Previous
« Previous
Next »
Next »
View Gallery
Published Date: 08 September 2010
THE Royal Navy plans to replace HMS Endurance with another icebreaker.

Senior navy sources have confirmed a vessel from Norway will join the fleet early next year to replace Endurance, which almost sank in 2008.

Axing Endurance, known as Red Plum, will save an estimated £30m repair bill.

The Norwegian icebreaker
ADVERTISEMENT
will join the fleet early next year and head off on an 18-month deployment in March, a senior source revealed.

It is unclear whether the navy will buy or lease the replacement icebreaker, which may be given the name Endurance.

The Royal Navy maintains its official line that a decision is yet to be taken on whether to repair or replace the ship. But The News understands Endurance's replacement will be ratified at a meeting of navy top brass next week.

Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South and a member of the parliamentary defence select committee, said: 'I'm not surprised the navy has gone for this option. They had three choices: scrap Endurance and forget about heading to the Antarctic; spend millions getting her in to good shape, or bring something in - and that's what they'll do. It seems the most logical step.'

HMS Endurance has sat idle at Portsmouth naval base ever since she was carried back home on a transport ship from the Falkland Islands in April 2009.

She almost sank in the Strait of Magellan, off the coast of Chile, in December 2008. A 15-month investigation into the flood revealed it was caused by a valve opening as crew made a routine filter change.

The navy originally said it intended to repair Endurance. But Whitehall has stalled on handing over the cash to fund the repairs, which would keep her out of action until 2011 - by which time she would be 20 years old.

In Endurance's absence, the navy deployed the ocean survey vessel HMS Scott to the South Atlantic and Antarctic as cover. But Scott does not have an icebreaker function, nor does she have the Lynx helicopters of Endurance.

A navy spokesman said: 'No decision on the way ahead has yet been taken.'

 

[Systems Adict]

Saw this, thanks to the link for Endurance's replacement....

Damaged HMS Daring returns to Portsmouth - Portsmouth Today

...That's a BIG dent, that won't just buff out !

SA

:nutkick

 

[ASFC]

Its the problem with retrospectively remodelling a fleet. I see very few real savings from disposals, however I have always assumed it would be a couple of Bays going not Bulwark & ALbion.

I quite agree.

If they really put some thought into it (which I doubt they will!), and it was decided they could do without two Bays, for whatever reason (be it financial or the removal of lift requirements etc), they could refit one Bay with a Hospital ward and facilities, and perhaps refit another so that it can act as a forward repair/support ship, and then pension of Argus and Diligence. Ok so you would lose the helicopter training bit, and Diligence's Ice strengthened Hull, but surely it makes sense to keep 4 ships that are the same, and pay off two ageing ships?

It made sense in my head at any rate......

 

[1805]

I quite agree.

If they really put some thought into it (which I doubt they will!), and it was decided they could do without two Bays, for whatever reason (be it financial or the removal of lift requirements etc), they could refit one Bay with a Hospital ward and facilities, and perhaps refit another so that it can act as a forward repair/support ship, and then pension of Argus and Diligence. Ok so you would lose the helicopter training bit, and Diligence's Ice strengthened Hull, but surely it makes sense to keep 4 ships that are the same, and pay off two ageing ships?

It made sense in my head at any rate......

Sounds like a good idea to me aswell

 

[kev 99]

I quite agree.

If they really put some thought into it (which I doubt they will!), and it was decided they could do without two Bays, for whatever reason (be it financial or the removal of lift requirements etc), they could refit one Bay with a Hospital ward and facilities, and perhaps refit another so that it can act as a forward repair/support ship, and then pension of Argus and Diligence. Ok so you would lose the helicopter training bit, and Diligence's Ice strengthened Hull, but surely it makes sense to keep 4 ships that are the same, and pay off two ageing ships?

It made sense in my head at any rate......

I have considered that a converted Bay could be used for a casualty reciving ship, doesn't sound like the worst idea in the world, with the dock it would be excellent for use in disaster support as well.

The only thing I can really see working against it is the single helicopter spot.

 

[ASFC]

I have considered that a converted Bay could be used for a casualty reciving ship, doesn't sound like the worst idea in the world, with the dock it would be excellent for use in disaster support as well.

The only thing I can really see working against it is the single helicopter spot.

It could be quite easily argued that you have a trade off-a helo spot on the Argus for a dock in a Bay.

Whilst I came up with this idea in my head totally independently of anything or anybody else, i could see this happening. Having forked out a not inconsiderable amount of money for the Bays, I can't see the RN being too keen on losing them, probably at a loss (of money) because they are now secondhand, and it wouldn't surprise me if somebody somewhere within in the Navy has come up with something similar in order to hold onto them!

 

[harryriedl]

It could be quite easily argued that you have a trade off-a helo spot on the Argus for a dock in a Bay.

Whilst I came up with this idea in my head totally independently of anything or anybody else, i could see this happening. Having forked out a not inconsiderable amount of money for the Bays, I can't see the RN being too keen on losing them, probably at a loss (of money) because they are now secondhand, and it wouldn't surprise me if somebody somewhere within in the Navy has come up with something similar in order to hold onto them!

from the typically innacuret papers it seems that everything's being considered from 30% cuts to 5% so anything that comes out will be trying to paint a dark picture as possible to make sure that it isn't that service which takes the brunt. The story seems to have developed from a cut in senior officer numbers(which i feel is overdue anyway) into huge cuts for everything

 

[windscorpion]

Telegraph said 20% at the weekend but numbers probably plucked out of thin air. When actually is the results of the SDR (and probably more importantly the budget cuts) being announced?

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Ok, we have an SDSR on-going and we have a penchant for the Royal Navy. Can we focus on 'capabilities' and vessels? What structure do we envisage the post-October navy having?

Will we run as a[n] [active] one-carrier, one amphib navy with support? If so what do we envisage the make-up of the support group will be? How many types of vessels do we require for such a tasking, and what is the support infrastructure involved?

I'm am slightly perturbed by the 'buy this vessel/system/cop-out' arguments that the last few months have thrown up. Given budget constraints, what is reasonable for Her Majesty's navy?

So, taking the lead, I would assume - on a war footing - the Navy would require:

CBG: (two groups; CVF protection, ASW projection)
1 CVF
2 Type-45
1 Type-22-III (CnC) [or a "Type-27"]
2 Type-23 (minimum) [or two-plus "Type-26"]
2 Astute
5 RFA

ARG: (supporting CBG)
1 Albion
2 Bay
1 Type-45
2 Type-23
1 Astute
3 RFA
3 Points [Though this may form part of a 'follow-on "UOR"!]

I would assume that, as a minimum we require twice the vessels quoted to maintain refit and training commitments. And that's assuming it is only a short-term engagement.

Do we have the funds, and the will, to support this expeditionary operation (including maintaining out treaty requirements)? If not, what should give (other than Trident)...? imp

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

From a budget perspective, CVF is not the most ex. According to the NAO, the largest existing procurements programmes for which decisions have been made are:

Typhoon = £30b (declassified info in 2009. Not sure if this includes tranche 3A cost. May only be for 144 a/c and includes £13b in support costs)
Future Tanker = £12b
Type 45 = £6.5b
Astutes = £6b (may not include cost for boats 5-7)
CVF = £5.3b (add £674m due to intentional delay)
A400M = £3.3b (and still no completion date in sight)
JSF = £2+b committed (138 production units not confirmed yet)

Most of the other programmes aren't worth the trouble and can't achieve 20% cuts even if fully chopped. The other programmes like Trident aren't even in the pic yet. Swing the axe? Take your pick.

 

[citizen578]

I'm hearing we just lost a Bay. Anyone know which one, and the given justification? I can't find anything online at the moment.

 

[ASFC]

I'm hearing we just lost a Bay. Anyone know which one, and the given justification? I can't find anything online at the moment.

I did read on another forum back in late May that one is supposed to be entering extended readiness (i think it was Largs Bay), I wouldn't exactly call it 'lost'..

 

[kev 99]

From a budget perspective, CVF is not the most ex. According to the NAO, the largest existing procurements programmes for which decisions have been made are:

Typhoon = £30b (declassified info in 2009. Not sure if this includes tranche 3A cost. May only be for 144 a/c and includes £13b in support costs)
Future Tanker = £12b
Type 45 = £6.5b
Astutes = £6b (may not include cost for boats 5-7)
CVF = £5.3b (add £674m due to intentional delay)
A400M = £3.3b (and still no completion date in sight)
JSF = £2+b committed (138 production units not confirmed yet)

Most of the other programmes aren't worth the trouble and can't achieve 20% cuts even if fully chopped. The other programmes like Trident aren't even in the pic yet. Swing the axe? Take your pick.

FSTA looking more and more like a joke of a contract.