The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

You are seeing these as just RM assets, for the sole role of beach landings, just the approach that has got one heading to "extended readiness". If they could operate at least 2 Merlins (ideally 4) they can operate independently, increasing the options,getting value out of their command/lift facilities for such things as: disaster relief, coordinating patrol work and acting as a mothership for CB90h type boats, MCM using helicopters or ROVs and yes special forces insertions. The above are all very mundane (well except for the SF I guess) but they are important and also gets the RN profile.

The RN needs to learn if you don't use it you lose it. Not fair I know, but they have to learn the rules of the game, and start playing it.

The Albion Class was designed as an RM asset crewed by the RN. The LC's were designed to fit snugly inside and the Viking designed to fit perfectly inside the LC's thus providing the brigade with all terrain protection supplemented by Army heavy armour when required. They are C&C vessels for the CO of the 3 Commando + staff to use as a floating platform to execute what ever UK Government policy instructs them to do.

The designated operational Albion class (second being in low readiness) will be busy all year round either training crews or supporting commando units (remember there are three which need to remain current in Amphib ops) on exercise/operational deployments in home waters or overseas. What it will not do is sit around rusting in some backwater desperately trying to justify itself - so the lose it or use it simply does not apply.

Like their counterparts in 16 Assault Brigade, 1 x Commando will remain on high readiness to deploy at short notice. The Albion plus a Bay will be the primary means of moving the operational Commando to task if a move by air is not an option. Having the vessel sitting in the Gulf on some other mission is not sensible when there are other vessels capable of carrying out such a low risk anti-piracy missions. Turning Albion into some for of anti-piracy mothership is a complete waste of asset, you deprive the 4000 strong 3 Commando Brigade of their primary assault ship. Where do you expect them to train/operate from whilst the active Albion is deployed far from home other RN tasks?

RM lift is provided by the Junglies flown by RM/RN pilots, they are centered around either Ocean or a Commando Carrier designated Invincible whilst at sea. Deploying them piecemeal to an Albion complete with small hanger does not fit in with current operational doctrine.

Army assets deploy at sea with Commando units on regular occasions, the UK has permanently attached a Rifles Battalion to the Commando orbat, plus you have all the supporting army artillery (29 &148), and engineers.

 

[1805]

Hello, 1805, after a year or so of only really bothering with Yuku etc I see you are still posting utter drivel. I cant stand the laughter anymore, lets see last week....

"My T83 would be the T45, ideally with a hanger for 2 Merlin (that would cost next to nothing), fitted with TAS (this could come across from a T23) and a flexideck plus accomodation for c200crew + up to 300 mission personel (again not going to cost much)."

So you are taking the hull form of a Type 45 adding a bigger hanger? Maybe. Then adding space for 20 tonnes or so of TAS gear and winches, yes maybe, but are you going to quieten the machinery to make that worthwhile? But here is the real mystery. Is there space in the hull of a Type 45 (even a stretched one) for a flex deck and acommodation for 300!!!! mission personel????

Lets see, how much space will you allow each person in square meters, then times that by 300? Then add galley facilities, sanitary systems, air con and heating conduits. How long will they be on board for? Then you need cold storage for supplies, ammunition storage and handling, How much room do troops need to form up, how do you deploy them from the flex deck bearing in mind there is a TAS taking up most of the stern. And finally if you want to deploy 300 mission personel, why don't you just use a Bay Class??? Dont you mention gold plating quite a bit? ummmm.


And here is another classic!!



"Based round the Hawk 200/Goshawk, but slower speed, greater range, capable of carrying: 8 Brimstone/4-8 SDB and 30mm cannon. Armoured in the key areas to withstand ground fire. This would be the sort of aircraft the Army would actually value. Rather than more competitors for the deep strike role.

"

So at a time when we are trying to reduce aircraft numbers....1805, the Hawk is what it is, a small relatively capable aircraft, with an Adour powerplant of about 6000lbs... if you can magically add greater range, a substantial weapon load and "armour" F.F.S then you truly are a genius. Yes lets take an existing light trainer and stick on a titanium bathtub for the pilot and armour on the underside???. its bound to fly!


I have to give you great credit 1805, you come on here day after day and get rebuffed by those with actual expertise in the military or industry (and I do not count myself amongst them in any way) and repeat the same old same old. I feel I am in a time machine, 2000 tonne frigates "like a (fill in the gap), fitted with( fill in the gap), we could then afford (fill in the gap)

And theres more....I ask you, if you take LHD-6, and take away the dock, its not a bloody LHD-6 is it?

Thanks for the entertainment 1805.

I thought we agreed not to make comments on each others post, as you couldn't coupe with the feedback. As you still have nothing meaningful to say, I'll keep to my side of the bargin.

 

[1805]

The Albion Class was designed as an RM asset crewed by the RN. The LC's were designed to fit snugly inside and the Viking designed to fit perfectly inside the LC's thus providing the brigade with all terrain protection supplemented by Army heavy armour when required. They are C&C vessels for the CO of the 3 Commando + staff to use as a floating platform to execute what ever UK Government policy instructs them to do.

The designated operational Albion class (second being in low readiness) will be busy all year round either training crews or supporting commando units (remember there are three which need to remain current in Amphib ops) on exercise/operational deployments in home waters or overseas. What it will not do is sit around rusting in some backwater desperately trying to justify itself - so the lose it or use it simply does not apply.

Like their counterparts in 16 Assault Brigade, 1 x Commando will remain on high readiness to deploy at short notice. The Albion plus a Bay will be the primary means of moving the operational Commando to task if a move by air is not an option. Having the vessel sitting in the Gulf on some other mission is not sensible when there are other vessels capable of carrying out such a low risk anti-piracy missions. Turning Albion into some for of anti-piracy mothership is a complete waste of asset, you deprive the 4000 strong 3 Commando Brigade of their primary assault ship. Where do you expect them to train/operate from whilst the active Albion is deployed far from home other RN tasks?

RM lift is provided by the Junglies flown by RM/RN pilots, they are centered around either Ocean or a Commando Carrier designated Invincible whilst at sea. Deploying them piecemeal to an Albion complete with small hanger does not fit in with current operational doctrine.

Army assets deploy at sea with Commando units on regular occasions, the UK has permanently attached a Rifles Battalion to the Commando orbat, plus you have all the supporting army artillery (29 &148), and engineers.

If an Albion could be found other useful activity, it wouldn't be necessary for the other one to be in extended readiness, so would be available for training.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A number of posts in here are not being formatted properly,

Please look at your posts and clean them up - edit and display properly.

Some of you have been on here long enough to know how to do this without us having to intervene

I'd also ask that self governing, self moderating behaviour take some priority - to some extent this is due to frustration on the part of various members who obviously don't want the topic to deteriorate into fanciful and possibly unrealistic scenarios etc.....

a little bit more reality and less venality would be useful...

 

[Hambo]

If there was a time line for the Euro Navies amphib fleets, how would it look?

Italian San Georgio, ordered early 1980s, no hangars but the Italians had a carrier.

The French Foudres built in 1990, also with hangars for 2-4 helicopters, they also had carriers to act as LPH

HrMs Rotterdam started in 1993, quite a ground breaking ship with aviation facilities.

HMS Ocean also started in 1993, one of the Intrepids was still afloat?

The Albions in 1996, no hangars as at the time we also had three Invincibles and Ocean being built. Plenty of LPH capacity.

The Cavour from 2000, an aircraft carrier but able to transport vehicles if needed

The Mistrals built from 2001

The Bays from 2003, cheap and cheerful lift similar to the Rotterdam design, a temporary hangar can be added.

Juan Carlos from 2005, big with lots of capacity..

No real conclusions there other than ships are ordered in the context of what capabilities a fleet already has or lacks and the idea of big flat topped docks with the best of both worlds became popular quite a while later eg when Ocean was planned, there wasnt actually a contemporary vessel afloat that has a dock, with the exception of the US ships but they were far to big, crew heavy and expensive for the RN to afford.

I think the structure of the RN fleet is pretty much to be expected, An LHD may make sense in the future possibly, but its also a point that the RN has experience of getting its amphib assets bombed, and docking down something as big as a Juan Carlos whilst under air attack does seem a bit risky?

 

[Waylander]

The second photo is not a challenger the 1st maybe. A light attack aircraft based on a Hawk 200 would be a lot cheaper and more useful than a F35 in supporting troop on the ground, in low or high tech situations and would have greater range, armament and ability to be armoured than an Apache. In a high tech war the F35 (or Rafale) can focus on CAP and deep strike, leaving tank busting to a dedicated aircraft. Don't think of it as a cheap multi role but more a light A10.

Based round the Hawk 200/Goshawk, but slower speed, greater range, capable of carrying: 8 Brimstone/4-8 SDB and 30mm cannon. Armoured in the key areas to withstand ground fire. This would be the sort of aircraft the Army would actually value. Rather than more competitors for the deep strike role.

I talked about the 1st photo. The glacis, the drivers compartment, the main sight, etc, all give it away.

The Army wouldn't value any additional money shuffled for just another fixed wing capability. Because that's what is needed to bring such a heavily modified Hawk into service. Additional funds which have to come from somewhere.
The main thing is while such a Superhawk may be cheaper to operate it is not usefull for anything else than plinking low tech enemies. Right now the UK is planning with F-35Cs and Apaches flying from the QEs. This combination can do everything one wants. The only advantage Hawk brings to the table is lower operating costs to a limited amount of missions it can perform. and only after additional investments into the actual development and procurement of such a Superhawk.

The Army went into Iraq with what? Ca. 140 Challies and the same number of Warriors? And for that number of operational tracks they had to scrap the bottom. After the cuts the Army will be happy to bring a heavy brigade into action. While the army cannot bring a 100 tubes to the fight I can imagine their attitude towards another dedicated low tech ground pounder...

The stated CAS mission for the Hawk you describe just doesn't really exist. You don't need 3 types of aircrafts to perform support for a limited number of ground troops.

The same goes for raids, evac ops, etc. Having additional Hawks aboard might be nice to have but is not necessary a bit because possible missions can be flown by a limited number of F-35s and Apaches.

 

[Volkodav]

Volkadov made a statement that there are no RAF multi-role assets in sight, which is wrong.

What I actually was inferring was that the UK has not traditionally gone for multi role platforms, not that there are not moving that way now, which is why I qualified my statement with:

"They are coming around but this is after decades of single roling units and their equipment."

There are exceptions to the rule such as the Type 23 Frigate, it was intended as a single role ASW asset that was little more than an armed towed array sonar tug but following the experience in the Falklands was recast as a general purpose frigate with a medium calibre gun and Harpoons.

The Batch I and II Broadswords are examples of single role designs while the post Falklands Batch III was a more general purpose design.

The RAF operated Tornado F3 as interceptors and the GR 1 /4 as strike aircraft instead of opting for a multi role version. They even operated the Phantom as a strike aircraft (not a fighter), prior to the introduction of the Jaguar, and then rerolled them as fighters never to drop a bomb again! i.e. they used a multi role aircraft in two roles at different times but never used it as a multi role aircraft. (if some one knows otherwise please prove me wrong but everything I have read seems to confirm this sad state of affairs).

It is simply an impression I have that the UK (in peace time) likes to stovepipe or compartmentalise their capabilities, then when the real world intervenes they move back towards multi role.

 

[Volkodav]

I talked about the 1st photo. The glacis, the drivers compartment, the main sight, etc, all give it away.

The Army wouldn't value any additional money shuffled for just another fixed wing capability. Because that's what is needed to bring such a heavily modified Hawk into service. Additional funds which have to come from somewhere.
The main thing is while such a Superhawk may be cheaper to operate it is not usefull for anything else than plinking low tech enemies. Right now the UK is planning with F-35Cs and Apaches flying from the QEs. This combination can do everything one wants. The only advantage Hawk brings to the table is lower operating costs to a limited amount of missions it can perform. and only after additional investments into the actual development and procurement of such a Superhawk.

The Army went into Iraq with what? Ca. 140 Challies and the same number of Warriors? And for that number of operational tracks they had to scrap the bottom. After the cuts the Army will be happy to bring a heavy brigade into action. While the army cannot bring a 100 tubes to the fight I can imagine their attitude towards another dedicated low tech ground pounder...

The stated CAS mission for the Hawk you describe just doesn't really exist. You don't need 3 types of aircrafts to perform support for a limited number of ground troops.

The same goes for raids, evac ops, etc. Having additional Hawks aboard might be nice to have but is not necessary a bit because possible missions can be flown by a limited number of F-35s and Apaches.

The only possible case I could see for a Superhawk would be as an advanced LIFT to replace the current Hawks and compete for the US Talon replacement. Such an aircraft could have a secondry role (shadow squadrons) of light strike and COIN and could be used to flesh out the airgroup as required.

Then again (so long as Brazil or India funds the development) it may be cheaper and more effective to buy the Gripen NG for the role to slot in between the Hawk trainers and F-35C.

 

[Hambo]

I would agree 100% about not needing the Hawk, the UK is developing Mantis, far more useful option, from the BAE website.


"The system is able to deliver a wide range of sensor outputs and weapon options in the typical dull and dirty operational environments. Mantis could potentially undertake a number of other intelligence and information gathering roles such as SIGINT and Maritime roles."

If dull and dirty is CAS in a future Yemen or Somali type mission, then there is absolutely no need to waste money developing a hawk.

 

[1805]

I talked about the 1st photo. The glacis, the drivers compartment, the main sight, etc, all give it away.

The Army wouldn't value any additional money shuffled for just another fixed wing capability. Because that's what is needed to bring such a heavily modified Hawk into service. Additional funds which have to come from somewhere.
The main thing is while such a Superhawk may be cheaper to operate it is not usefull for anything else than plinking low tech enemies. Right now the UK is planning with F-35Cs and Apaches flying from the QEs. This combination can do everything one wants. The only advantage Hawk brings to the table is lower operating costs to a limited amount of missions it can perform. and only after additional investments into the actual development and procurement of such a Superhawk.

The Army went into Iraq with what? Ca. 140 Challies and the same number of Warriors? And for that number of operational tracks they had to scrap the bottom. After the cuts the Army will be happy to bring a heavy brigade into action. While the army cannot bring a 100 tubes to the fight I can imagine their attitude towards another dedicated low tech ground pounder...

The stated CAS mission for the Hawk you describe just doesn't really exist. You don't need 3 types of aircrafts to perform support for a limited number of ground troops.

The same goes for raids, evac ops, etc. Having additional Hawks aboard might be nice to have but is not necessary a bit because possible missions can be flown by a limited number of F-35s and Apaches.

I would not see this as a hugely expensive development of the Hawk. Basically taking existing technology (Hawk 200/Goshawk). Adding prehaps 500lbs of kevlar, and an weapons load of maximum 3,000lbs. It would keep the Hawk production line going and help exports in this area (no different from the Germans over ordering Leopard 2 and flooding the market with 2nd hand ones).

That said if it did look like it was going to grow in cost I would not do it.

 

[1805]

The only possible case I could see for a Superhawk would be as an advanced LIFT to replace the current Hawks and compete for the US Talon replacement. Such an aircraft could have a secondry role (shadow squadrons) of light strike and COIN and could be used to flesh out the airgroup as required.

Then again (so long as Brazil or India funds the development) it may be cheaper and more effective to buy the Gripen NG for the role to slot in between the Hawk trainers and F-35C.

I agree the Gripen NG would be an option, but then it would be gaining weight/cost, another solution might be the development of Taranis. Either way with the Harriers gone there will be a huge gap between vunerable helicopters and F35.

 

[Hambo]

Hi Volkadav

The Lightning was designed as an interceptor but was exported with some ground attack capability.
The Hawk was a trainer with limited A2A as a point defence system, so multi-role ish.
The Sea Harrier was FRS/1 Fighter/Recon/Strike so thats multi role and then more so in FA/2 ie Fighter and attack so as mutirole as anything else out there.
Im sure RAF Germany Phantom squadrons performed both roles?

In the 1970 s and 80,s no navy was really doing land attack other than the USN so multi role in the Cold War context wasnt so much of an issue, you (we) needed lots of ASW platforms and lots of air defence platforms (16 vessels with Sea Dart at one point...minus 2 war loses).

You could argue some of the french and italian ships designed for the med were more mutirole, with area SAM and anti sub missile systems but that was due to the environment they were going to fight in.

The UK had specific needs, an island surrounded by sea, with the primary ASW mission to keep the atlantic open and to defend against soviet bombers hence assets were made with a purpose in mind, the chances were the pilots or sailors would be dead before they ever got to practice a secondary mission.

 

[1805]

If there was a time line for the Euro Navies amphib fleets, how would it look?

Italian San Georgio, ordered early 1980s, no hangars but the Italians had a carrier.

The French Foudres built in 1990, also with hangars for 2-4 helicopters, they also had carriers to act as LPH

HrMs Rotterdam started in 1993, quite a ground breaking ship with aviation facilities.

HMS Ocean also started in 1993, one of the Intrepids was still afloat?

The Albions in 1996, no hangars as at the time we also had three Invincibles and Ocean being built. Plenty of LPH capacity.

The Cavour from 2000, an aircraft carrier but able to transport vehicles if needed

The Mistrals built from 2001

The Bays from 2003, cheap and cheerful lift similar to the Rotterdam design, a temporary hangar can be added.

Juan Carlos from 2005, big with lots of capacity..

No real conclusions there other than ships are ordered in the context of what capabilities a fleet already has or lacks and the idea of big flat topped docks with the best of both worlds became popular quite a while later eg when Ocean was planned, there wasnt actually a contemporary vessel afloat that has a dock, with the exception of the US ships but they were far to big, crew heavy and expensive for the RN to afford.

I think the structure of the RN fleet is pretty much to be expected, An LHD may make sense in the future possibly, but its also a point that the RN has experience of getting its amphib assets bombed, and docking down something as big as a Juan Carlos whilst under air attack does seem a bit risky?

I have to respond to this:

1 - The RN is in the top tier of navies and should be at the forefront of thinking/development not trailing at the back.

2 – You can’t just exclude the USN because it does not suit your neat list. Spain/France/Australia will be deploying ships similar (if a lot smaller) in concept to the USS Tarawa of 1969

3 – I would hope that you would at least accept that if we were starting again from scratch now, we would get more value/flexibility out of 2 Mistral type ships than 2 Albion + 1 Ocean. Or if we can’t afford a through deck at least Foudres type.

 

[Waylander]

I would not see this as a hugely expensive development of the Hawk. Basically taking existing technology (Hawk 200/Goshawk). Adding prehaps 500lbs of kevlar, and an weapons load of maximum 3,000lbs. It would keep the Hawk production line going and help exports in this area (no different from the Germans over ordering Leopard 2 and flooding the market with 2nd hand ones).

That said if it did look like it was going to grow in cost I would not do it.

You also need to integrate the weapons and targeting capability as well as modern self defence systems because without them it is much more vulnerable than the Apaches right now which feature such systems.
BTW, comparing the Apaches with some fixed wing light CAS plane is like comparing apples to oranges as a dedicated modern attack helicopter like the UK Apache performs many roles which cannot be performed by such a proposed Hawk.

And that Germany was able to flood the market with so many second hand Leos was not due to clever procurement but because the Bundeswehr got reduced just as much as every other western european army out there. Germany never procured additional Leos and dumped the rest on the market.

We just dumped the stuff we didn't need anymore while upgrading the rest. If the cold war would have gone on all the Leos would have remained in BW service.

Had the Brits done their homework with the Challi 1 they could have done the same after the end of cold war. As it is used Challi 1s were not competetive compared to used Leopard IIs.

Within shrinking overall numbers of the UK armed forces it is IMO a waste of money to procure a platform which has no capability which is not covered by existing or planned platforms.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The previous post I made about fixing and formatting prev posts properly was more than a suggestion...

"QUOTE" properly...

If people don't go back and clean up their prev posts I will lock the thread and start deleting them.

 

[swerve]

I... (no different from the Germans over ordering Leopard 2 and flooding the market with 2nd hand ones).....

The Germans didn't over order Leopard 2. There was this thing called the Cold War, with tens of thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks just across their border. If anything, the Germans were stingy with their orders.

Times changed, & they no longer needed 2000-odd Leopard 2, so were able to flog the majority off. That doesn't mean they had a surplus in 1985.

 

[PeterCrisp]

Sorry if this has been discussed but what are the Navy going to do with the single F-35B they have just ordered? I'm assuming all orders from now will be the C model so will we even have pilots trained to fly the B? I suppose we could send it straight to Duxford Air Museum as it would attract a fair bit of attention and I'd go again to see it but I'm thinking the papers would moan about it being a waste.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry if this has been discussed but what are the Navy going to do with the single F-35B they have just ordered? I'm assuming all orders from now will be the C model so will we even have pilots trained to fly the B? I suppose we could send it straight to Duxford Air Museum as it would attract a fair bit of attention and I'd go again to see it but I'm thinking the papers would moan about it being a waste.

The Navy was unlikely to ever see this F-35B in fleet service even if they went the full 132 F-35B order. This is a developmental plane which the UK as a high level partner needed to order. Obviously they would now prefer a F-35C but this F-35B will still be able to complete a lot of the UK specific development work. No doubt it will be bartered when a F-35C becomes available but until then is still an important part of the program.

 

[Hambo]

On the MOD website is a pat of the interview with Gen Richards, Chief of Defence Staff on the SDR and He mentions the Harrier decision and the F35C,

"When the decision was taken in 2009 to reduce the Harrier fleet to 32 aircraft it became impossible to sustain operations in Afghanistan, and maintain an adequate contingent capability for the unexpected, with just the Harrier.

"The short delay to the first carrier, to allow it to be fitted with 'cats and traps', means that when it comes into service in 2019 it will be equipped with the hugely capable carrier variant of Joint Strike Fighter. That will mean we will have greater flexibility over their 50 years' lifespan and will ensure we are prepared for a less predictable future."

Is there anything further on what carrier will get the cats? QE or POW or both, and would the term comes into service actually mean fully up to speed as a carrier with all the work up already completed, or will there still be many years ahead of trial and error?

Also I didnt know the Harrier fleet was so small with so few airframes, or was that more to do with cost cutting rather than lack of airworthy harriers?

 

[jawaboy]

Cost cutting unfortunatly. Although it wasn't supposed to be a problem at the time.