The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Wrong sensors. They're electronic intelligence, replacements for the Nimrod R.1s. Flying listening posts. Great for locating emitters, analysing signals, etc, but that doesn't make them good MPAs. Using them in that role would be a waste of their abilities. Something cheaper could do the MPA role better.
Thanks, I though it was worth asking. Would you (or others) mind elaborating what kind of support the Nimrod's provided to the UK Vanguards, I can't imagine it would be direct ASW screening as it kind of defeats the purpose of a silent sub if there was aircraft flying direct top cover. Concisely how will the boomers be at greater risk?

To save posts, surely the P-8 would be the main contender should long maritime patrol become a spending priority again?

Thanks
 

Padfoot

New Member
Thanks, I though it was worth asking. Would you (or others) mind elaborating what kind of support the Nimrod's provided to the UK Vanguards, I can't imagine it would be direct ASW screening as it kind of defeats the purpose of a silent sub if there was aircraft flying direct top cover. Concisely how will the boomers be at greater risk?

To save posts, surely the P-8 would be the main contender should long maritime patrol become a spending priority again?

Thanks
Escort in and out of base.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks, I though it was worth asking. Would you (or others) mind elaborating what kind of support the Nimrod's provided to the UK Vanguards, I can't imagine it would be direct ASW screening as it kind of defeats the purpose of a silent sub if there was aircraft flying direct top cover. Concisely how will the boomers be at greater risk?

To save posts, surely the P-8 would be the main contender should long maritime patrol become a spending priority again?

Thanks
They're usually used to "sanitise" the intended approach route to make sure the boomer gets a clear run in and out - otherwise a hostile sub can approach and loiter close enough to conduct some signature measurement and "type" the propulsion and machine noise. That helps separate the target from "might be a submarine" to "it's a Vanguard" or whatever.

That's my laypersons understanding however,

Ian
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They're usually used to "sanitise" the intended approach route to make sure the boomer gets a clear run in and out - otherwise a hostile sub can approach and loiter close enough to conduct some signature measurement and "type" the propulsion and machine noise. That helps separate the target from "might be a submarine" to "it's a Vanguard" or whatever.

That's my laypersons understanding however.
Ian, I think u've hit the nail on the head !!

The other obvious thing was to actually hunt down Russian / foreign subs that our subs had picked up & track their movements.

Sub hunting aside, here's a question for EVERYONE...

In the classic movie 'Hunt for Red Oktober' the Ruski sub comments on the fact that they're being over-flown by turboprop aircraft.

So here's the question...

Would NIMROD or a similar Jet engined plane be picked up via noise alone, or is it more to do with a radar being in the loop, picking up the A/C??

I appreciate that the likes of the Orion P-3 / P-8 & the Russian 'Bear' (TU-95 RT) have a higher noise signature, due to the blades breaking the sound barrier as they rotate...

SA
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In the classic movie 'Hunt for Red Oktober' the Ruski sub comments on the fact that they're being over-flown by turboprop aircraft.

So here's the question...

Would NIMROD or a similar Jet engined plane be picked up via noise alone, or is it more to do with a radar being in the loop, picking up the A/C??

I appreciate that the likes of the Orion P-3 / P-8 & the Russian 'Bear' (TU-95 RT) have a higher noise signature, due to the blades breaking the sound barrier as they rotate...

SA
SA, the Bears had HUGE acoustic footprints, everyone could hear them coming, in comparison a jet would not. Orions also do not transmit as much either.

Bear in mind (no pun intended) that because they are are contra rotators, the cavitation just escalates. They were lousy ASW assets hence the use of them as ASh
 
Last edited:

rip

New Member
SA, the Bears had HUGE acoustic footprints, everyone coule hear them coming, in comparison a jet would not. Orions also do not transmit as much either.

Bear in mind (no pun intended) that because they are are contra rotators, the cavitation just escalates. They were lousy ASW assets hence the use of them as ASh
I think the question of what they can or cannot hear from an over flying aircraft can only be answered by one of the bubble heads (Submariners) but then again they seldom talk. They are the one service that keeps operational security very closed.
 

JoeMcFriday

New Member
Rip,
You might want to retract the advice you just gave gf0012-Aust.

I'm told he tells "bubble-heads" what they can hear but don't tell any-one.

Just check out his past posts,

Cheers,
Mac
 

riksavage

Banned Member
One assumes a UK boomer is always escorted by a T or future A class, they would also be looking for Russian subs. With Russia's sub fleet in such poor condition I doubt they have the assets to monitor all UK, French and US boomers? Also I'm sure the NIMROD escort function could be carried out by a cheaper near silent UAV fitted with the appropriate sensors. With Rivet Joint coming on-line by 2015, the int gathering element (lost when R1's retired) will be filled. The agreement with the US means the airframes will be stripped and serviced every four years in a rolling programme dovetailed alongside the US 20 odd Rivet Joint airframes. The common fit-out means USAF and RAF crews will be assigned to each others aircraft (NATO missions) and share common int.

According to recent press reports, UK ministers have been flogging the T26 concept to every man and his dog, hoping to embrace not just the Brazilians, Canadians, but even Turkey and the ANZAC's. If (big if) successful then the proposed 350 million unit price might be feasible without compromising too much in way of capability. CAMM, rapid firing main gun, or slower 155 derivative, Harpoon, AsW fit plus decent helo/UAV (I suspect the UK will be pushing Wildcat + SeaSkua MkII).

Britain’s Future Frigates: Type 26 & 27 Global Combat Ships

Feb 6/11: MercoPress refers to Brazilian and British media reports that a GBP 2.9 billion deal (about 7.85 billion Reals, or $4.68 billion) may be about to buy 6 Offshore Patrol Vessels at GBP 60-80 million each, and 5-6 Type 26 at GB 300-400 million each. While the new Rousseff administration is reviewing both the F-X2 fighter purchase and naval plans, the paper cites Brazil’s growing deepwater oil production as a compelling driver for the Marinha do Brazil. The report adds that:

“The articles mention that according to the agreement with BAE Systems and following on Brazilian policy of ‘technology transfer’ the first patrol and frigate units would be built in the UK and the rest in Brazilian yards…. Developed countries are most aware of defence dynamics in Brazil since the country’s long term policy is to increase defence expenditure from the current 1.5% of GDP to 2% of GDP by 2030. Since the country’s economy is forecasted to grow a sustained 5% in the coming decades, defence investments will also expand strongly. With a nominal Brazilian GDP of 1.57 trillion US dollars, – IMF figures – if defence expenditure was now 2.2% of GDP, it would represent 34 billion USD.”See also UPI.

Jan 31/11: U.K. Defence Minister Gerald Howarth responds to Parliamentary questions by saying:

“I am delighted to say that we are in close discussion with the Canadians [regarding the Type 26]. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from an extremely profitable visit to Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. All those countries have expressed interest in joining the United Kingdom in a collaborative programme that would have the benefit of bringing together not only members of the Commonwealth but some of our key allies, while also driving down costs for the Royal Navy.”

Both Canada and Australia have plans for a “future frigate” competition in their 20-year defense procurement strategies, and BAE can expect strong competition on both fronts. Canada may be a better bet than Australia, where Spain’s Navantia has established a very strong foothold with its current Hobart Class destroyer and Canberra Class LHD programs. UK Hansard transcripts | Defense News.

Nov 29/10: Rumors surface that the UK government is looking to sharply slash target costs for the Type 26 frigates, from GBP 500 million to GBP 250-350 million ($400 – 550 million), in order to field a large enough Royal Navy fleet.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nov 29/10: Rumors surface that the UK government is looking to sharply slash target costs for the Type 26 frigates, from GBP 500 million to GBP 250-350 million ($400 – 550 million), in order to field a large enough Royal Navy fleet.
This makes it sound like the UK are becoming the Kiwis of the north, always trying to do it more cheaply than anybody else. If you are total cost capped then you can have capability or numbers but not both (a dilemma very familiar in Aust) and one where I would have thought that the RN would have come down in favour of capability - for major surface combattants at least.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
This makes it sound like the UK are becoming the Kiwis of the north, always trying to do it more cheaply than anybody else. If you are total cost capped then you can have capability or numbers but not both (a dilemma very familiar in Aust) and one where I would have thought that the RN would have come down in favour of capability - for major surface combattants at least.
They have a long, long way to go before they become the Kiwi's of the North. With 6 x T45 the RN have enough AAW assets to protect the ARG. The T26 is a general purpose Frigate, more likely to be seen fighting pirates than WWIII. The unit cost does not include Wildcat or any proposed UAV/UCAV capabilites. Wildcat will represent a first-in-class asset with air-ground, anti-sub and anti-ship capabilties. Add CAMM, AsW, Harpoon II and you tick most boxes in my opinion. Even if TacTom is not included, the RN still has seven Astutes to deliver long range strike, coupled with (hopefully) F35C.

As long as the QE/ARG are protected (at least 2 x T45 & 2-3 T26), then extra assets don't need to be over engineered ready to fight WWIII, they need to be able to defend themselves, deliver boarding parties, fly the flag and project power (ship-to-shore).

Hopefully the design will allow for moduler flexibility, T26's assigned to the fleet being fitted with state of the art AsW capabilities + Merlin/Wildcat. T26's assigned to the Gulf/general patrol having a basic fit of CAMM, main-gun, 30-40mm and a single Wildcat.
 

1805

New Member
This makes it sound like the UK are becoming the Kiwis of the north, always trying to do it more cheaply than anybody else. If you are total cost capped then you can have capability or numbers but not both (a dilemma very familiar in Aust) and one where I would have thought that the RN would have come down in favour of capability - for major surface combattants at least.
I'm not sure this is the issue at all. The you can only have number or quality is a bit of a red herring, the issue is waste. The Nimord disaster hardly fits the case.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm not sure this is the issue at all. The you can only have number or quality is a bit of a red herring, the issue is waste. The Nimord disaster hardly fits the case.
???

I'm lost.

How does the Nimrod disaster fit in with this comment ? :confused:

Yes, I can understand that there's a difference between the ability to field a large number of 'equipment' of a certain technical level / age, vs. An expensive, technically advanced, new / modern product of high quality.

That's a given

As for 'a waste', well if you invest in a LARGE amount on equipment but really only have the need / requirement for 1/3rd of that total, then you are correct, but if you spend a LARGE amount on a very specialst, technically advanced, but small group of equipment, then the only loss or waste is the financials in procuring & maintaing the equipment.

Anyone wanna counter ??

SA
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
From the warships forum, new link on the Type 26 with some slightly firmer details on the ship.

Global Combat Ship - BAE Systems

Diesel/Electric propulsion, decent sized hangar and mission bay for boats or USW's, plus a multirole concept for fitout.

Might be the basis for a decent Frigate, ya never know.

Ian
 

1805

New Member
From the warships forum, new link on the Type 26 with some slightly firmer details on the ship.

Global Combat Ship - BAE Systems

Diesel/Electric propulsion, decent sized hangar and mission bay for boats or USW's, plus a multirole concept for fitout.

Might be the basis for a decent Frigate, ya never know.

Ian
That is very interesting: GP, ASW & AA versions, a significant move from the FSC. It really does look like they have pulled all the stops out on an export focused design. Combined with the reports of a real sales push in a lot of likely and less likely countries, this really does look positive. Prehaps better than both is the apparent change for approach.

If the GCS really pushes FREMM out of Brazil that will be something to smile about.
 

1805

New Member
???

I'm lost.

How does the Nimrod disaster fit in with this comment ? :confused:

Yes, I can understand that there's a difference between the ability to field a large number of 'equipment' of a certain technical level / age, vs. An expensive, technically advanced, new / modern product of high quality.

That's a given

As for 'a waste', well if you invest in a LARGE amount on equipment but really only have the need / requirement for 1/3rd of that total, then you are correct, but if you spend a LARGE amount on a very specialst, technically advanced, but small group of equipment, then the only loss or waste is the financials in procuring & maintaing the equipment.

Anyone wanna counter ??

SA
Sorry, my post might not have been clear. I was saying it is not just a "numbers v quality debate". The RN can afford reasonable numbers of advanced kit if it avoids the more obvious waste in the way it procures equipment. The advanced bit they should have focused on in Nimrod was the content not the plane, that could have been sourced cheaply and with less risk on decline in numbers, with A320 (c£45m).

Additionally this would have been quicker and more attractive for exports providing the potential for spreading the development costs of the clever bit, the content.

The RN should be able to field greater number than most other Navies (other then USN and maybe the PLAN). This should give it an edge in export of designs particularly as USN designs are in many cases "money no object". The trend to local construction should actually help as we are largely selling IP?
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm told that the crew target for the T26 is 106, rather than the 130 quoted here. Quite a reduction on an already lean manned vessel.

WillS
That might be 106 plus mission specialists perhaps? Really depends on what modularity they're including and how the crew is detailed off in that mix. Maybe 106 is base complement for just running the ship? I'm guessing, they may just be planning on flogging everyone on board til they bleed to make it work..


Ian
 
Top