The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

You need an organic surface warfare capability that extends past the range of the gun - every major navy and more than a few minor ones have been fielding anti shipping missiles for the last thirty or forty years - why be the odd one out? There's nothing worse than bringing a gun to a missile fight.

Ian

Actually some USN ships are now relying on Standard, and the T42s relied on Sea Dart. The Helicopters do all the leg work, I not saying ships based Harpoon is as redundant at a 15" turret but when are they ever going to be fired at anything? Name me some targets we would fire them at??? Agreed they are very useful on the back of lorries fired at us.

But we have plenty left over from the T23/T22 so just fit them when in foreign waters like the French did with the A69 class.

Ask youself how many Harpoon/Exocet have been ship fired by the RN v how many Skua?? Which is the weapon of choice and why??

 

[1805]

First of class for the Type 26 is due to enter service early 2020 ish - which dovetails neatly with the carrier expenditure being done and dusted as near as I can tell.

Thing is, if we repeat the earlier approach with the Type 23 and float them out fitted for but not with some stuff, we could get something approaching a low cost hull and then increase the specification and capability over future ships, with the intention of adding extra capability back in over the life of the ship, perhaps with kit scavenged from ships paid off where needed.


A light general purpose frigate will not meet requirements.

Ian

What key requirements would a light frigate be unable to meet. Assuming a full fit of: 57mm gun, 16 CAMM, 1 Phalanx, a Wildcat armed with Skua/TT and a TAS. (I might be wrong but I think the Abukuma class destroyer escort was originally designed for TAS and is a similar size).

BTW the Danes containerized Sea Sparrow onto 320t patrol boats some years back this can't be impossible.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was, and just going from the photo posted so thanks for correcting me. I'm sure they are more robust than they look.

I have now looked it up and think I would prefer a Storebro SB90E or CB90h.

The Orc is about 1/3 the size of a CB90. Of course the CB90 is ‘better’ because it’s so much bigger. But you need a lot more space to carry it, a lot more fuel and spares to run it.

1, Sell 2 T45, ideally later ones so they are brand new, for £1bn. To get cash in now so we can get a carrier and some fixed wing aircraft back online for 2016. I don't like this but the carriers have got to be no 1 priority.

While the carriers are the centre of any fo equipped fleets capability unfortunately for the RN internal politics rein. So the submariners – who are currently in charge – get their 7th Astute first and then the fish heads get their frigates second and the birdies come last. Fighting a war doesn’t even get a look in.

Colour me perplexed but that leaves the RN with no surface anti shipping capability at all other than a single cannon per ship?

Neither will it have any ASW capability beyond helicopters ?

And that’s a bad thing? Helicopters are much better than ship hulls for carrying out the ASuW/ASW mission. Much larger area coverage, longer reach, faster response time and frankly even cheaper to buy and maintain the appropriate weapon for a helicopter than fitting it to the ship (torpedo tube, missile launcher, etc).

 

[spoz]

And that’s a bad thing? Helicopters are much better than ship hulls for carrying out the ASuW/ASW mission. Much larger area coverage, longer reach, faster response time and frankly even cheaper to buy and maintain the appropriate weapon for a helicopter than fitting it to the ship (torpedo tube, missile launcher, etc).

Plus the only thing submariners really fear (apart from another submarine) is a group of enough pingers to box them.

 

[1805]

The Orc is about 1/3 the size of a CB90. Of course the CB90 is ‘better’ because it’s so much bigger. But you need a lot more space to carry it, a lot more fuel and spares to run it.



While the carriers are the centre of any fo equipped fleets capability unfortunately for the RN internal politics rein. So the submariners – who are currently in charge – get their 7th Astute first and then the fish heads get their frigates second and the birdies come last. Fighting a war doesn’t even get a look in.

Sad but so true.

 

[StevoJH]

But we have plenty left over from the T23/T22 so just fit them when in foreign waters like the French did with the A69 class.

The ANZAC's seem to have the tubes aboard in Pair's rather then quad's most of the time from what i've seen. That could also be an option.

 

[1805]

I don't think we can get CAAM/Artisan at that price, unless we build bits of the ships abroad, if we left them off then maybe, but I if we did I can't see the point in having them, they would be only useful for chasing pirates and smugglers around and would be useless in a war.

Wasn't there some talk that CAAM/Artisan would be cross decked from the T23 that received?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Treasury generally doesn't have the technical knowledge to successfully challenge a requirement at the earlier stage so they accept the numbers/costing. Had they said; no you only require 2 50,000t CVFs and are you absolutely sure you will have the budget, can't you stagger construction, we might be in a better place.

Not true. UK Treasury has a specialised cell which deals specifically with Defence Procurement - they are often ex MOD staff, ex Military Project Managers and have substantial experience with major acquisitions

 

[kev 99]

Wasn't there some talk that CAAM/Artisan would be cross decked from the T23 that received?

There won't be enough for your 16 light frigates, it is almost certainly the case that your light frigates would not have the necessary space for all the kit your talking about (thus not meeting the £100m budget), the Abukuma class destroyer escort may of been built for a TAS but it was never installed and it doesn't feature a hanger or a SAM system either.

 

[swerve]

Wasn't there some talk that CAAM/Artisan would be cross decked from the T23 that received?

Yes, but there are only 13 T23, & AFAIK they're not all scheduled to get CAMM & Artisan. Also, those that do will stay in service until the 2030s or late 2020s. Your light frigates would need new sets, unless your plan is to retire T23 early.

 

[1805]

Yes, but there are only 13 T23, & AFAIK they're not all scheduled to get CAMM & Artisan. Also, those that do will stay in service until the 2030s or late 2020s. Your light frigates would need new sets, unless your plan is to retire T23 early.

I would see construction occupying the yards once the carriers have been complete, from 2018-20? At a steady 1 laid down every 18-24 months. As the first ones would be additional hulls (well replacing the T22) these could be the more OPV so without Artisan/CAMM . You would still need about 4 more sets as I think Artisan/CAMM was only being installed on c8 T23.

I would hope the long production run and steady order rate should enable these ships to be built at the lowest cost achievable in the UK. I would put a lot of pressure on the builder to achieve this and attract exports and set an expectation of at least 30 in total. I would see many of these being sold off the shelf before entering RN service or within 3-6 years service and back filled by further orders (the cost of this could come from the DTI or overseas aid budget!).

I would like to see every captain tasked with selling his ship and getting a bonus for it.

I was just reading up on the now cancelled follow ons for the KD Lekiu and apparently they were going to get TAS.

When finances are better we can focus on higher spec versions (gas turbined 30+ knots etc) full spec ships. When times get tougher revert to more basic versions (diesel 25 knots).

This is one area that the RN could us its internal buying power to dominate, only the US spends more and they are not interested in this area. Basically consign the MEKO to the "ash heap of history"

 

[swerve]

This is one area that the RN could us its internal buying power to dominate, only the US spends more and they are not interested in this area. Basically consign the MEKO to the "ash heap of history"

Won't work. Can't work. It would require a completely new RN & MoD for it to be RN-led, & a complete replacement of management in British shipbuilding for it to be led by shipbuilders.

MEKO was a commercial initiative by industry, not navy-led. That's why it's succeeded. TKMS designs to be configurable for multiple customers, & configures to what each customer wants. The RN will not pay for that, & wouldn't be allowed to by the MoD. Industry would have to, & finance it by selling ships. That would need a changed way of thinking in industry, wiling to risk its own money instead of sucking at the MoDs teat.

It's been done for small ships, e.g. the F2000, but how many are selling? A steady trickle, but with marketing disasters where someone forgets to check if the customer can actually man or afford to operate the ship, & suddenly the yard is lumbered with unwanted ships, & facing a massive lawsuit if it wants to get paid.

 

[StobieWan]

Actually some USN ships are now relying on Standard, and the T42s relied on Sea Dart. The Helicopters do all the leg work, I not saying ships based Harpoon is as redundant at a 15" turret but when are they ever going to be fired at anything? Name me some targets we would fire them at??? Agreed they are very useful on the back of lorries fired at us.

But we have plenty left over from the T23/T22 so just fit them when in foreign waters like the French did with the A69 class.

Ask youself how many Harpoon/Exocet have been ship fired by the RN v how many Skua?? Which is the weapon of choice and why??

What if we get into a shooting war with someone with a navy? The USN can use Standard as it's a big heavy missile with a decent size warhead and they've been plinking small boats with them - ditto, Skua works fine on boghammers and other small vessels.

What happens if the helicopter is either down for maintenance or prosecuting a submarine contact?

Every other major navy has an antiship missile capability - why do we have to be special and have none?

Recovering the launchers from the Type 23's is possibly the best way forward but would apply for Type 26 as well so there's no advantage there.

I don't see where the advantage of filling out hull numbers with smaller vessels will help - the cost of the ship is more tied to the systems fitted into it - the actual hull is a relatively cheap affair and you get considerable benefits from building a bit bigger, leaving a bit more room for servicing and redundant systems.

Have a look at the batch 1 Type 42 vs the later batches - more room, better damage tolerance and more flexibility.

Ian

 

[1805]

Won't work. Can't work. It would require a completely new RN & MoD for it to be RN-led, & a complete replacement of management in British shipbuilding for it to be led by shipbuilders.
.

I think we have to accept this needs to happen anyway, one thing that has come out very clear from the mess we are in, is the current lot could not run a bath!

Although there is talk of export potential, the T26 is just more of the same, from an approach that has already demonstrated it has failed.

If you look at RN ships/systems over the last 30 years there are common themes:

1, Although often badged general purpose, the focus is on single function, not ideal for true independent operation.

2, No real innovation, yes often high spec, but really trying to do the same things better rather than differently.

3, Late to market compared to peers and often expensive in comparison to competitors if not in absolute terms.

4, Not designed/built with any regard to exports or the impact on the domestic industrial infrastructure.

 

[1805]

What if we get into a shooting war with someone with a navy?

Name one we would realistically come up against and would be prepared to risk a tug boat in SSN infested waters?

The real threats the RN face are:

Conventional subs
Coastal defences (Guns/SSM)
Mines
FAC
Aircraft

Allied airpower make the bottom two problematic to apply.

 

[StobieWan]

Oh and can you justify to me how a 65,000t carrier is needed for an air group of 36 fixed wing aircraft?? While you're there look up the complements of the: USS Midway, LHA-6 & the Charles De Gaulle. If you want a real laugh look up the last fixed wing complement of the 28,000t HMS Hermes in 1969 (I think 29 aircraft including Buccaneers). If they had been 45-50,000t, we could have afforded three comfortably, entering service 2008-10 (maybe instead of a few assault ships), 2018-20, and 2028-30.

The Midway was commissioned at 45000 tonnes and decommissioned at 74,000 tonnes - that tends to suggest the US felt bigger was better, surely?

The Charles De Gaulle is easy - the French have specified a replacement approximately 5Kt bigger than the QE's and the RN after operating smaller carriers, decided they liked bigger too. They had plenty of expertise to make that decision with. They did look at operating a larger group of smaller carriers and set it aside.

Larger carriers permit higher sortie rates, allow easier aircraft movement inside the carrier and permit more sorties per deployment, as well as being more resistant to battle damage.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Name one we would realistically come up against and would be prepared to risk a tug boat in SSN infested waters?

The real threats the RN face are:

Conventional subs
Coastal defences (Guns/SSM)
Mines
FAC
Aircraft

Allied airpower make the bottom two problematic to apply.

And yet the RN, USN and every other navy on the planet that belongs to a regional or global power continues to drag all this redundant and useless anti shipping stuff around?

Ian

 

[1805]

And yet the RN, USN and every other navy on the planet that belongs to a regional or global power continues to drag all this redundant and useless anti shipping stuff around?

Ian

Navies are very often very conservative, they all built battleships in to WW2, there are still people who debate their value today. In reality there are only a few navies that lead and innovate the rest just follow, sadly it looks like the RN moved into the following camp some years back.

I am not saying don't cross deck the existing kit of the T26.

 

[1805]

The Midway was commissioned at 45000 tonnes and decommissioned at 74,000 tonnes - that tends to suggest the US felt bigger was better, surely?

The Charles De Gaulle is easy - the French have specified a replacement approximately 5Kt bigger than the QE's and the RN after operating smaller carriers, decided they liked bigger too. They had plenty of expertise to make that decision with. They did look at operating a larger group of smaller carriers and set it aside.

Larger carriers permit higher sortie rates, allow easier aircraft movement inside the carrier and permit more sorties per deployment, as well as being more resistant to battle damage.

Ian

The point was about the aircraft complement and displacement, which roughly works out at just over a plane per 1,000t. 65,000t looked generous for 36-40 aircraft now and being cancelled will not help the sortie rate to much. On survivability I think the Midway's and Hermes had armoured decks (not sure about Hermes), and where heavily modificed. CVF should have moev volume than both/1,000t

 

[Waylander]

As for recycling the Harpoons currently in use for use on new designs.
Do they have enough life in them left?
IIRC our own Harpoons are at the end of their life span and a decision about the SSM armament of our new ships has to be made.

Is it possible to adopt Scalp Naval for this role? The UK already uses Storm Shadow. So getting their own shipborn version ready to go shouldn't be much of a problem.
Maybe modifying the seeker so that not only IR but also radar is used in the terminal phase. Would also solve the land attack capability in one go.

It would include British know how and industry participation and may be the only indigineous solution which is financially reasonable.

Other solutions are only available off the shelve (Harpoon Blk III, RBS-15 Mk.3, etc.)