The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

Not often I quote the Sun newspaper, but 1SL Admiral Stanhope wrote today:

Which is why we are building two new aircraft carriers, have just commissioned the third of six new Type 45 ships, have launched the second of seven Astute-class submarines, are upgrading our helicopter fleets and will deliver 13 new Type 26 global combat ships, four fleet tankers and three support ships.

Most not really news, but I haven't heard it repeated with such clarity for a while... The number of vessels for the RFA are news to me though; older material stated 6 fleet tankers and 5 support ships pre SDSR.

That older material was based on a larger escort fleet containning 12 Type 45s plus C1 and C2 FSCs and 2 flat tops on active service (out of 2 CVF and 1 LPH) at any one time. With the reduction of the escort fleet to sub 20 and only 1 flat top active at a time it was inevitable that the MARS requirement would be reduced.

 

[riksavage]

That older material was based on a larger escort fleet containning 12 Type 45s plus C1 and C2 FSCs and 2 flat tops on active service (out of 2 CVF and 1 LPH) at any one time. With the reduction of the escort fleet to sub 20 and only 1 flat top active at a time it was inevitable that the MARS requirement would be reduced.

Plus we are buddying up with the French, so any large EU/NATO deployments will have a foreign RFA equivalent in tow. Also T45 & future T26 are/will be more efficient and require less tanker stops.

Just picked-up the UK is looking at deploying Watchkeeper equipped 'ISTAR tactical groups' (30 Commando in the case of RM) on board Viking armoured vehicles to support battlegroups on the ground and provide real-time intelligence. This will provide the RM with a badged embedded expeditionary UAV ISTAR capability for the first time.

If Watchkeeper is adapted for carrier use then the RM could have live feed direct to the front line from day one without having to wait for a landing strip to be secured. Makes complete sense to allocate a small number of platforms, make the necessary adaptations (folding or removable wing, tail hook, reinforced undercarriage). The length of the QE's deck may actually mitigate the need for arrested landing or assisted launch.

The plan is to fit I-Master GMTI/SAR radar onto the airframe, providing a range of up to 30km. This will increase the options of surveillance assets available to the amphib force without risking the lives of pilots and expensive rotary airframes. With a 17 hour endurance capability you could launch Watchkeeper to undertake littoral recce's in advance of the fleet or undertake long endurance anti-piracy patrols. Instant stop-gap until a dedicated marinised Anglo-French UCAV arrives.

The first units will be operational in Afghanistan this year.

US & UK have formally confirmed training of ground and aircrews prior to the arrival of the fIrst QE.

 

[Repulse]

I knew that the number of RFAs were going to be reduced but it since the SDSR it was always 'under review'. I hope they go for a JSS style support ship. With what is going on in Libya, Yemen and anti piracy ops these types of ships have really shown their worth.

 

[kev 99]

I'll go one stage further on the RFA and say the old MARS requirements as set out on Richard Beedle's site probably goes back to the 1998 SDR or at the least the 2003 White paper.

 

[riksavage]

I knew that the number of RFAs were going to be reduced but it since the SDSR it was always 'under review'. I hope they go for a JSS style support ship. With what is going on in Libya, Yemen and anti piracy ops these types of ships have really shown their worth.

Agreed, I would rather the RFA went for a reduced fleet of all-rounders, rather than dedicated tankers. I'd even go as far as having it fitted for but not with CAMM (pallet mounted), include a couple of 30mm's and a small flight deck. At least then should the balloon go up against a well armed foe the vessel could contribute to it's own self-defence without having to rely totally on escorting T45/23/26.

The Bay's have been used as motherships in the Gulf, a future JSS could find itself doing the same for MCM's undertaking MSR clearence duties or anti-piracy patrols. Having the ability to up-arm would would allow for a more flixible response by the Navy. Even better if CAMM ends up able to deal with smaller surface threats and can be pallet mounted similar to the way Phalanx can be.

 

[swerve]

CAMM would need sensors which I think the RFAs are not planned to have. For basic self-defence, Seastreak or the like would be much cheaper & easier.

CAMM is also a very expensive way to deal with small surface threats, even if it can do it. Wouldn't guns, & maybe LMM, be enough?

 

[kev 99]

CAMM would need sensors which I think the RFAs are not planned to have. For basic self-defence, Seastreak or the like would be much cheaper & easier.

CAMM is also a very expensive way to deal with small surface threats, even if it can do it. Wouldn't guns, & maybe LMM, be enough?

I agree a decent sized hanger able to host a couple of Wildcats with LMM should be enough for small surface threats, after we've ordered a decent amount of them.

 

[Anixtu]

The MARS requirements have been set for some time, and despite the cuts and merging of some of the planned classes, the requirement remains for tankers and solid stores replenishment to be separate classes of ship. No more AORs.

Self defence roughly on the scale of the Wave class is also part of the requirement. There used to be a quite good Powerpoint presentation on MARS floating around the MoD website.

 

[Troothsayer]

I'll go one stage further on the RFA and say the old MARS requirements as set out on Richard Beedle's site probably goes back to the 1998 SDR or at the least the 2003 White paper.

Speaking of Beedal, he reckons 5 Type 23's are 'on the line' (amongst other things) to cover an MoD funding gap. Maybe that's what the 1SL's little speech was about.

I'd find it surprising because a) It would render the SDSR 'future force' requirements defunct immediately (it's pointless already i know, i know!) and it would mean the reduction of many standing tasks, a lot of them politically difficult.

 

[kev 99]

Yes I've read that editorial, it sounds suspiciously like scare mongering to me, much as most of the rest of his editorials have been in the last 3 years.

 

[1805]

The MARS requirements have been set for some time, and despite the cuts and merging of some of the planned classes, the requirement remains for tankers and solid stores replenishment to be separate classes of ship. No more AORs.

Self defence roughly on the scale of the Wave class is also part of the requirement. There used to be a quite good Powerpoint presentation on MARS floating around the MoD website.

I just don't understand why the RN wants to go down this route. I guess an AOR is a compromise but with smaller deployments surely it makes sense to have one single class of multi role ships. Also would rather see a 6-7 beefed up Rover sized ships: c15,000t hanger and facilities for up to 2 Merlin.

 

[1805]

Speaking of Beedal, he reckons 5 Type 23's are 'on the line' (amongst other things) to cover an MoD funding gap. Maybe that's what the 1SL's little speech was about.

I'd find it surprising because a) It would render the SDSR 'future force' requirements defunct immediately (it's pointless already i know, i know!) and it would mean the reduction of many standing tasks, a lot of them politically difficult.

I would be very surprised, 5 must be a worst case...well a disaster. That said I suspect T23 numbers will decline maybe to 10 over the next 2-4 years, realistically the likelihood of getting more than 8 T26 must be slim. This is why I and others have suggested a light frigate to maintain numbers.

 

[Repulse]

The MARS requirements have been set for some time, and despite the cuts and merging of some of the planned classes, the requirement remains for tankers and solid stores replenishment to be separate classes of ship. No more AORs.

Self defence roughly on the scale of the Wave class is also part of the requirement. There used to be a quite good Powerpoint presentation on MARS floating around the MoD website.

I don't understand why AORs are being ruled out. Surely having seperate tankers and solid stores means you need two ships when one can suffice (and more). Can someone explain?

 

[kev 99]

I would be very surprised, 5 must be a worst case...well a disaster. That said I suspect T23 numbers will decline maybe to 10 over the next 2-4 years, realistically the likelihood of getting more than 8 T26 must be slim. This is why I and others have suggested a light frigate to maintain numbers.

It's a red herring; introducing a second light frigate would be pointless because the budget doesn't exist to run them, anything above 19 escorts is unfunded under the SDSR.

On the subject of AORs I've read rumours that they are viewed as more expensive to purchase and definitely more expensive to run, I've got no idea on the validity of these rumours though.

 

[Repulse]

It's a red herring; introducing a second light frigate would be pointless because the budget doesn't exist to run them, anything above 19 escorts is unfunded under the SDSR.

On the subject of AORs I've read rumours that they are viewed as more expensive to purchase and definitely more expensive to run, I've got no idea on the validity of these rumours though.

I guess it's a no brainer that AORs are more expensive, but the RN are always trying to do more with less, so single role RFAs seems to be going against the grain of what is happening elsewhere. JSS type ships would also be able to replace RFA Argus in the hospital role and even in the longer term more could be built to replace the Bays. Three classes down to one... Keep the fleet tankers though as a JSS would be too small for a carrier group.

In danger of opening Pandora's box for a second time... But, I think that 13 T26s are becoming a real possibility as it is increasingly being quoted. However, with a carrier group to support alongside other high priority commitments for APT(N) and UK duty frigate, there will not be enough for the rest.

If we stopped at 8 ASW T26s, we could spend the other £1.5bn (5 x £300mn) on smaller / cheaper vessels, perhaps 8 - 12 Holland Class variants built under licence (with perhaps a second 76mm gun...). Crewing numbers / costs would be very similar and the vessel has a good sensor fit as standard, additional weapons could be added in a time of a hot war.

 

[Anixtu]

Why AORs are bad:

(I think kev 99 has been reading stuff I've written. Regardless of whether the criticisms are valid for all AORs, they are definitely valid for the Fort class.)

The replenishment side of the RFA needs to be scaled to support - as much as possible within budgetary constraints - 1) CVF, 2) amphibious task groups and 3 Cdo Bde, 3) small deployments and standing tasks.

Small deployments do not require solid stores as a priority: they tend to be run on "peacetime" conditions with no major ammunition resupply required; food supplies on escorts can last a respectable period; by far the greatest demand is for fuel. Hence why the Rovers, Waves and Leafs have very limited solid stores capacity and relatively lots of fuel. They *do* have a small and rarely practiced food replenishment capability, mostly by carrying reefer containers on deck.

CVF and ATG on the other hand require LOTS of dry stores AND lots of fuel. A QE class carrier engaged in serious combat operations will use munitions and AVCAT like they are going out of fashion and Marines are hungry fellows.

So the requirements for small deployments and for task groups are quite different. In a world of limited budgets, small ships like the Rovers are a luxury and it is better to have two or three classes of replenishment ship: specialised ammunition and food ships to support task groups; specialised tankers to support task groups and small deployments. Sending an AOR for something like APT(N) or APT(S) is overkill. Unless you build lots of small and inefficient AORs, but those are inefficient for task group deployments, so why would you do that?

 

[kev 99]

If we stopped at 8 ASW T26s, we could spend the other £1.5bn (5 x £300mn) on smaller / cheaper vessels, perhaps 8 - 12 Holland Class variants built under licence (with perhaps a second 76mm gun...). Crewing numbers / costs would be very similar and the vessel has a good sensor fit as standard, additional weapons could be added in a time of a hot war.

Sacrificing escorts for an OPV? Doesn't exactly help the RN's ability to fight a war although it would help with those troublesome pirate hunting commitments, I can't see where you're going to put the second 76mm gun though.

(I think kev 99 has been reading stuff I've written. Regardless of whether the criticisms are valid for all AORs, they are definitely valid for the Fort class.)

Might be, I can't remember where I read it.

 

[Anixtu]

I guess it's a no brainer that AORs are more expensive, but the RN are always trying to do more with less, so single role RFAs seems to be going against the grain of what is happening elsewhere. JSS type ships would also be able to replace RFA Argus in the hospital role and even in the longer term more could be built to replace the Bays. Three classes down to one...

Would you also like to propose aircraft carrying submersible air defence ships?

 

[Repulse]

Would you also like to propose aircraft carrying submersible air defence ships?

Nope, but aircraft carrying submarines is not a new concept either...

You make good points in your AOR reply above which I can understand. Perhaps what I am really looking for is Bays with hangers (similar to the Fort class) which could do a Yemen type role.

 

[Repulse]

Sacrificing escorts for an OPV? Doesn't exactly help the RN's ability to fight a war although it would help with those troublesome pirate hunting commitments, I can't see where you're going to put the second 76mm gun though.

Most sources I've read state that the Holland class would be classed as a frigate if it had better weaponry. The fact is that most non hot war tasks could be carried out comfortably by a Holland type vessel carrying a Merlin or Wildcat, APT(S) for example. You could upgrade them if the need arised. The could also carry AUVs.

The 2nd 76 mm gun, is to give a relatively cheap increase in ASu and AAW capability when using specialist munitions such as Volcano.