The Nimrod could......
That leaves us with the hope that we can buy the F35s upcoming Joint Strike Missile...
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
That leaves us with the hope that we can buy the F35s upcoming Joint Strike Missile...
Those NATO navies with submarines use them for ASW. Absalon is not a measure of NATO ASW capability, or even Danish navy ASW capability. It's not an ASW ship. A British Type 23, A German F123, a French F70, the ASW version of FREMM - all these, & others, are far more capable in ASW, with more quietening & much better ASW sensors, e.g. towed sonars. Absalon's best chance is to carry a well-equipped ASW helicopter.
BTW, nobody actually operates sub-launched SAMs, AFAIK. The new German underwater-launched SAM system isn't operational.
LMM will be perfectly adequate for anti-piracy top cover. We may see UCAVs capable of carrying that but not FASGW(H). Fire Scout would be pushed to carry FASGW(H), I think. If, as expected, it's the same size & weight as Sea Skua, then two of 'em would be slightly more than the stated maximum payload of a Fire Scout, & one would be a very asymmetrical load to take off with.
Australia doesn't have a requirement for a second Bay, the QEs won't replace any of their capability, & there's currently no plan to dispose of any more.
Sadly, I fear we will lose Ocean with no direct replacement (there's no plan for a new ship), but at least a QE can replace her capability.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Err, what give you that idea??
Largs Bay fills the future sea lift requirement very well, I very much doubt the RAN will buy another Bay, especially in another 10-15 years time when they will be 15-20 years old.
If ocean is in decent condition when the QE's enter service there is half a chance she'll be kept, and the RFA's would cost hardly anything to run compared to a frigate that has three times the crew.
I am, ofcourse, aware that "Absalon is not a measure of NATO ASW capability" Still if we have a, to my understanding, not high-end, but still cabable and modern sonar that's more or less completely incabable at detecting such a sub at just reasonable "safe" distances, then the high end stuff has to be orders of magnitude better to do the detection at significantly larger, and I assume, safer distances.
Ofcourse should the sub attack, the counter-attack probably would destroy the syb, but "Mad man Ghaddafi" would probably gladly exchange a sub and it's crew for 100 or more drowned brits - a trade we wouldn't want to make.
Agree with the ASW helo. Correct that the underwater SAM isn't in operation - though it seems a future posibility.
Can somebody help me:
AFAIK, HMS Ocean is commissioned in around 1998.
And they want to decommission her???
That ship should should be in good condition well into the end of the 2020s - after all it's not made of plywood.
To me that doesn't sound like saving money, rather throwing money out the window.
AFAIK, HMS Ocean is commissioned in around 1998.
And they want to decommission her???
That ship should should be in good condition well into the end of the 2020s - after all it's not made of plywood.
To me that doesn't sound like saving money, rather throwing money out the window.
And what's this: Largs Bay sold for £65M !!
As far as I can add from this
Navy Matters | LSD(A)
The programme cost of the four bay ships was approx 500M if we are very friendly, that's 125M per unit.
The ship is commissioned in 2006 which is almost the same as brand new, and it's given away for a discount of approx 50%!
In my world that amount to giving UK tax payers money&value away, as a gift.
As far as I can add from this
Navy Matters | LSD(A)
The programme cost of the four bay ships was approx 500M if we are very friendly, that's 125M per unit.
The ship is commissioned in 2006 which is almost the same as brand new, and it's given away for a discount of approx 50%!
In my world that amount to giving UK tax payers money&value away, as a gift.
Well, after 20 years you probably have to do some upgrades, but the core of a ship is not old after just 20 years, after all it's not made of plywood.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
You're repeating yourself.
Honestly, it probably depends what standard of materials they used to construct her (grade of steel) along with how much it would cost to continue to upgrade electronics, maintain services inside the ship and maintain/overhaul the engines.
For a ship built on the budget that HMS Ocean was, it just might not be worth spending the money.
Personally I hope they replace Ocean and Argus with a two ship class of LHD's, even if they are fairly small.
Honestly, it probably depends what standard of materials they used to construct her (grade of steel) along with how much it would cost to continue to upgrade electronics, maintain services inside the ship and maintain/overhaul the engines.
For a ship built on the budget that HMS Ocean was, it just might not be worth spending the money.
Personally I hope they replace Ocean and Argus with a two ship class of LHD's, even if they are fairly small.
kev 99
Member
No money to be spent on it in future equals money saved, the politicians certainly seem to like that intepretation anyway.
Yeah, what a catastrophy!
Running a ship like ocean or largs bay, or just keeping them operational for the option of future need, must be peanuts in the budget of a large economy like the british...
But OK, if these ships are worned down after just 20 years of service then Ocean is passing her prime.
kev 99
Member
It may seem unlikely but Ocean was built on the cheap.
Yeah, you are right, I am just puzzled.
Strange to build a ship to only last 20 years when the role of the ship, LPH, could easely be seen to be relevant beyound 30 years from then.
I wonder which shortcuts they have made that makes it not worthwhile to keep the ship operational for a full 30 years - are the engines of inferior quality and getting worned?
Anyway, decommisioning a ship that's only 65% through it's projected life span, means that it's orginal cost should be seen as 53% higher (minus what ever you can get on the used car market) and then that ship weren't so cheap after all, if I am not much mistaken.
To quote someone from another forum "Half the cost for two thirds the lifespan is a good thing, for everyone"
I didn't get that one - why half the cost?
I think it goes back to the bidding on this contract. VSEL (who designed a commercial vessel) being nearly half of that of the competing Swan Hunter (who designed a military vessel). The commercial design would last 20 years and the military 30 but at nearly half the cost the MOD jumped at the cheaper option.
Now I have been out of the loop for some months, I had heard that the UK millitary was being cut, but reading through this "SDSR" and other cuts, I am nothing less than shoked!
I know, you guys know everything about it, but I have to air my distress:
No carrier strike group for about 10 years?
6 modern Type 45,
a number of frigates that really look like they are close to "best before date" to soldier on to 2020?
Cut's in the amphibious force. Either the ocean or the other illustrious has to go.
Plans for new surface combattans, 13, but that remains to be seen out in distant 2020.
QE maybe not a strike carrier, but a helicopter carrier!
Apparently the UK goverment has made it clear that the only reason why QE&POW isn't cancelled is due to high cancelation costs - sounds like two orfaned ships to me....
F35s what's the status?. Extreamly expensive new planes in the face of dire cuts? Suddenly, I have my doubts....
In 10 years time they will say: "Well, we did without carrier strike groups for 10 years, apparently we don't need a carrier strike force and then we don't need F35s for the carriers - and do the the RAF need them badly? probably not, after all they got the Typhoon which is also an airplane, and then we don't have to buy those expensive F35s at all, a huge save in the face of a continous budget crisis; So one aircraft for the RAF; The Typhoon and helicopters for the navy".
There will be no Falklands to remind the politicians why carriers have decided just about all major naval actions since and including WW2....
The army cutting its ChallengerII to "less than 200" - for comparison, midget Denmark has 50 LEOII...
Less self propelled artillery.
Well, I acknowledge that 60000t carriers and fancy stuff is not to all that much use in Afgh. On the other hand tomorrows Milosevic, Saddam H. or Ghaddafi aren't going to be impressed by light troops in mine resistant vehicles!
It's a disaster! - not only for the UK.
I know, you guys know everything about it, but I have to air my distress:
No carrier strike group for about 10 years?
6 modern Type 45,
a number of frigates that really look like they are close to "best before date" to soldier on to 2020?
Cut's in the amphibious force. Either the ocean or the other illustrious has to go.
Plans for new surface combattans, 13, but that remains to be seen out in distant 2020.
QE maybe not a strike carrier, but a helicopter carrier!
Apparently the UK goverment has made it clear that the only reason why QE&POW isn't cancelled is due to high cancelation costs - sounds like two orfaned ships to me....
F35s what's the status?. Extreamly expensive new planes in the face of dire cuts? Suddenly, I have my doubts....
In 10 years time they will say: "Well, we did without carrier strike groups for 10 years, apparently we don't need a carrier strike force and then we don't need F35s for the carriers - and do the the RAF need them badly? probably not, after all they got the Typhoon which is also an airplane, and then we don't have to buy those expensive F35s at all, a huge save in the face of a continous budget crisis; So one aircraft for the RAF; The Typhoon and helicopters for the navy".
There will be no Falklands to remind the politicians why carriers have decided just about all major naval actions since and including WW2....
The army cutting its ChallengerII to "less than 200" - for comparison, midget Denmark has 50 LEOII...
Less self propelled artillery.
Well, I acknowledge that 60000t carriers and fancy stuff is not to all that much use in Afgh. On the other hand tomorrows Milosevic, Saddam H. or Ghaddafi aren't going to be impressed by light troops in mine resistant vehicles!
It's a disaster! - not only for the UK.
Ocean was built as a one off (which is the real shame !). She was built to commercial standards, cheap & cheerfull (FACT, not fiction, hearsay, or supposition).
Now I have no intention from detreacting from her usefulness, ability & capability, but by the time she's 20 years old, she will only be really fit for the scrap heap. She & Argus are a pair of the most over-worked ships in the RN fleet. IF the navy decided to throw cash at her she might last to 30 years, but that would be about it
.
You're kinda right with this, but VSEL actually fronted up some of their own money for this, if I've read the article correctly....
Navy Matters | HMS Ocean
SA
@Systems Adict
Building a ship to "commercial standards" is not the same as building to inferior quality. A ship builded to "commercial standards" can be just as good or better as a ship builded to "Millitary standards". Commercial standards are (perhaps?) more relaxed, but the customer will often stipulated that certain specifics should be of so and such a high, maybe higher, standard while other specifics can be builded to a lower standard, F.ex. because millitary standard in these specifics is judged as irrelevant/redundant.
F.ex. it doesn't affect the ship as such that parts of its IT use non-millitary standard protocols, and because you are saving money you don't want to go through the maybe labourious task of getting the new protocol certified.
I am pretty sure that the initial specifications from the MOD specified both the standard and the lifetime - so I don't think the story holds much water.
Building a ship to "commercial standards" is not the same as building to inferior quality. A ship builded to "commercial standards" can be just as good or better as a ship builded to "Millitary standards". Commercial standards are (perhaps?) more relaxed, but the customer will often stipulated that certain specifics should be of so and such a high, maybe higher, standard while other specifics can be builded to a lower standard, F.ex. because millitary standard in these specifics is judged as irrelevant/redundant.
F.ex. it doesn't affect the ship as such that parts of its IT use non-millitary standard protocols, and because you are saving money you don't want to go through the maybe labourious task of getting the new protocol certified.