The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Holiday time!

I know, lets go play with some pirates!

Sun Seeker Portofino 48 with a machine gun bolted on the front and a matt black paint job then?

Ok, i'll stop now.....

Interesting Model, T26 must be getting close to a contract being signed if the first ship is to commission in ~2018.
You just go sign up here and you're sorted :)

To The Point News - THE ULTIMATE ADVENTURE CRUISE

Back on topic. Type 26, I want one now! I'm really keen to see how it goes as it'll be the backbone of the very reduced fleet we'll be sailing.

An export order would be cool as well,

Ian
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Apologies, I've updated the post with a link to a photo you can actually see (I hope!).

Global Combat Ship

WillS
Lot's of interesting innovations/announcements coming out of DSEI.

The UK will introduce Fire Shadow in 2012 to compliment ground based artillery/mortar units in Afghanistan. The system can undertake the following:

Fire Shadow provides a precision capability to engage high value targets in complex scenarios. Surface launched, the munitions have a range of about 100 km and can conduct a direct transit to target or be positioned to loiter in the airspace for a significant time (about 6 hours). A Man-In-The-Loop decision then enables a precise and rapid attack against a selected target.

British Army Sets to Deploy Fire Shadow Loitering Weapons to Afghanistan by Early 2012 | Defense Update

Looking at the size of the munition and basic rail lunch set-up this could with a bit of tweaking be applied to a maritime environment in support of amphib forces or against smaller littoral targets. A damn sight cheaper than firing Scalp or something similar in an environment where the enemy may be a group of insurgents. A man-in-the-loop FAC placed ashore or UAV flying overhead could guide the missile to target mitigating the likelihood of civi casualties. The UK's approach to tri-service weaponry (CAMM) could apply here, Stick something like this aboard a T26 and you have a cost effective ship to shore precision munition which can loiter over the beachhead.

Having something like this over Libya, fired from surface combatants would prove a great deal more cost effective than flying fast air from Italy or launching expensive TacTom to hit low value targets. If fitting TacTom/Scalp to T26 is too expensive, a marinised Fire Shadow could prove the next best thing.

There is also an update on CAMM, which is progressing well through testing. Hopefully there will be no delays fitting CAMM and Artisan to T23 and they can be seamlessly transitioned to T26 on commissioning. If CAMM works I can see it being the weapon of choice for ship upgrades and developing nation navies not tied to US, Chinese or Russian systems due to cost nad ease of installation.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...-new-air_defense-system-progressing-well.html
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
MBDA is now marketing Fire Shadow for shipboard operations against coastal targets, or in support of forces ashore.

I wonder if EMKIT could be used for launching it from ships, dispensing with the rocket booster.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
MBDA is now marketing Fire Shadow for shipboard operations against coastal targets, or in support of forces ashore.

I wonder if EMKIT could be used for launching it from ships, dispensing with the rocket booster.
Interesting - any silo options? Ideally, pinch the soft launch from CAMM - at which point, I suspect the US would promptly be heading the queue to buy a bunch as it'd give LCS the reach it needs compared to Griffin, and more like NETFIRES was meant to be.

Not sure I fancy chucking them onto a electromagnetic catapult, one at a time mind.

Ian
 

kev 99

Member
Personally I like the idea of a vls option that first appeared in the T45 brochure more than this rail launch idea.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Personally I like the idea of a vls option that first appeared in the T45 brochure more than this rail launch idea.
It's got to be doable - the Type 26 is still being listed as having the option for loitering attack munitions (and I'm sure that sounds like Fireshadow to me!)


Just seen the graphic with the shackled test assembly hurling a Fireshadow off into the beyond, kind of looked like it should be in black and white with some voice over announcing in a plummy accent "and here goes another shot against the hun, take that one, Hitler.." or something - bit retro and agricultural.

Ian
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Does it really matter if its a test rig? It probably would have been knocked up by hand in an inhouse or local machine shop.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Does it really matter if its a test rig? It probably would have been knocked up by hand in an inhouse or local machine shop.
I'm sure it was - it just made me chuckle is all. If they're serious about marketing it internationally then they'll need to package it in a way that it can be handled on board a ship and that'll be the interesting step. If they can dual pack it into a VLS MK41 for instance, the world may be their oyster,

Ian
 
Libya Saves Carrier Strike


by Richard Beedall.

In October 2010 the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) shocked the Royal Navy by announcing the immediate scrapping of the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and Joint Force Harrier. It also said that one of the two 65,000 tonnes Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers under construction would be sold or placed in to extended readiness (reserve).

The only ray of light in the gloom was the intention to regenerate a carrier strike capability by 2020, this consisting of one QE class carrier converted from a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration to a Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) ‘cat and trap’ configuration and routinely embarking 12 F-35C Joint Strike Fighters. However, despite all the cuts made in SDSR, it was soon clear that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) still had serious budget problems and that more cuts were inevitable. By early 2011 the outlook for the £10 billion ‘Carrier Strike’ programme seemed very bleak, and the RAF was coveting the use of the planned F-35C’s in order to meet its ‘Deep and Persistent Offensive Capability” requirement, i.e. a manned replacement for the Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft.

The Royal Navy then got one of the few pieces of luck that it has had in recent years. Ark Royal was decommissioned on 11 March 2011 after completing her de-storing (or rather gutting for spares). That was just eight days before the government committed the United Kingdom’s armed forces to a military intervention in Libya - Operation Ellamy (also designated Operation Unified Protector after NATO took control on 27 March).

If Ark Royal had still been available, or could have been quickly restored to an operational condition, there is little doubt that she and a scratch air group including temporarily reprieved Harrier GR.9 jets would have been assigned to Ellamy. There is also little doubt that she would have distinguished herself, and the ship would have made a triumphant return to HMNB Portsmouth around the end of August having flown hundreds of highly effective combat sorties.

However, it is also certain that the many long standing and influential critics of RN aircraft carriers would have discounted this success, claiming that the same effect could have been achieved more cheaply by the RAF from land bases in the UK and Italy – thus again proving that expensive aircraft carriers were not needed. They would then have continued to argue that new aircraft carriers were unnecessary and unaffordable by the country in the current economic climate, and that the best way to solve the MOD’s budget woes was to find a way to cancel them and scrap or sell the half built ships.

But thankfully Ark Royal was not available. As a result the government and the MOD became uncomfortably aware of just how big a loss she was, and (contrary to the view expressed in SDSR) just how useful even a small aircraft carrier with short range jump jets can be for military operations outside land-locked Afghanistan. Italy then proved the point by making very effective use of the eight AV-8B Harrier II’s based upon the ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi - an aircraft carrier even smaller than the 20,000 tonnes Ark Royal.

Despite the strenuous and unexpectedly costly (£3-5 million a day, including £40,000 a day for hotel rooms in Italy) efforts of the RAF, it could not fully plug the carrier gap and UK officials became increasingly defensive about the scale of the country’s contribution to an air campaign that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and other Ministers had so strongly advocated. Perhaps the most telling statistic is that according to NATO figures, French aircraft were flying about 33% of all strike sorties (33%) whilst the British aircraft were flying just 10% (700 out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15). Even Denmark managed more than the UK (11%), and Italy flew about as many sorties as the UK despite not starting to participate in NATO operations until April 27. Possibly the RAF’s strike sorties were more effective than allies, but on the other hand if support sorties are included in totals then its percentage of missions flown becomes even lower.

The key differentiator for France was its aircraft carrier, FNS Charles de Gaulle. Positioned off the Libyan shore, the 18 fixed wing aircraft (10 Rafale, 6 Super Etendard and 2 E-2C Hawkeye) in her hard worked air group flew 1,350 sorties (most but not all being strike sorties) during 120 days of air operations. On an average day she was flying about twice as many strike missions as the RAF could manage! Additionally, aircraft from Charles de Gaulle could react to targets of opportunity in as little as 20 minutes, by contrast it would take six hours before RAF jets based in the UK could hit a target, or 90 minutes if flying from Italian bases.

An indication of how desperate the government was becoming – and just how little military capability was left on the shelf – was the deploymen

t of the amphibious ship HMS Ocean as a makeshift “Helicopter Carrier, Attack”, with four and later five Army Air Corps Apache WAH-64 helicopters embarked. Thereafter, she was frequently referred to as an aircraft carrier in news reports!

As a result of the Libyan conflict – and the increasing recognition of the utility of aircraft carriers - leaks and media articles negative to the QE’s and the Carrier Strike programme have noticeably reduced. The promise of “the largest warships ever built for the Royal navy” has become an essential ‘fig leaf’ for ministers and officials answering criticism from all sides on the disastrous effect of the premature demise of Ark Royal and the Harrier jet.


The 8000 tonnes Lower Block 03 of HMS Queen Elizabeth being moved from Govan shipyard on the Clyde, to Rosyth dockyard for assembly. (John Linton)

The hope that the RN might actually get both QE’s rather than just one also advanced slightly when on 27 May the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, said “I will continue to press the UK Government to ensure not only that they are both constructed but that they enter into operational use." He certainly say that both Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship Prince of Wales (likely to be renamed Ark Royal) will be fitted with the catapults, arrestor gear and other equipment necessary to operate the F-35C CV variant of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, but the possibility was being hinted at.

Another step forward came on 18 July when it was announced that the MOD’s equipment and support budget would increase slightly from 2015 in order to provide for the conversion of one QE class (probably Prince of Wales) to cat and trap at cost of about £1 billion. It's far from clear that this was actually additional money being added to the overall defence budget, but the priority being accorded to rebuilding a carrier strike capability was confirmed.

Then on 22 August, Gerald Howarth, Minister for International Security Strategy, told the Portsmouth News that he hoped that the next defence review, planned for 2015 will decide to keep both carriers:

"The SDSR concluded we needed one carrier but clearly that has its own limitations in availability and clearly the 2015 defence review gives us an opportunity to look again in the prevailing economic conditions and see where we go from there. Clearly, all of us would like two aircraft carriers because that gives us the continuous at-sea capability. We've had to take some pretty tough decisions but we're hoping to be in a position to recover that one in 2015."

Thanks to Libya and the pre-mature loss of Ark Royal, some of the serious mistakes made in SDSR have become impossible to ignore – even by the politician’s involved in the decisions. Compared to last Autumn, those politicians are now more aware of the geopolitical realities facing a country that is a member of the UN Security Council, and hopefully less inclined to make snap decisions that seriously affect both national security and national prestige (often one and the same thing).

The Royal Navy’s case for Carrier Strike has been immensely strengthened, and the service can look forward with significantly increased confidence to the decisions expected over the next year regarding the implementation of Carrier Strike. The best case possibility is that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be completed in a STOVL configuration in 2016, to then conduct extensive first of class trails and crew training exercises, including with allied Harriers and F-35B’s. Prince of Wales will then be delivered in 2019 in a cat and trap configuration, becoming operational the next year with 6 and later 12 F-35C's. Queen Elizabeth can then be refitted and converted to a similar standard in a c.2020-22 time frame, allowing the RN to guarantee the availability of a UK strike carrier 100% rather than 60% of the time.

Even the RAF seems to have reconciled itself to the fact that Carrier Strike will happen, and has agreed that the manning of the F-35C squadrons will be shared 60:40 with the Fleet Air Arm. The problem now is to buy enough F-35C’s to form the three front-line squadrons of 12 aircraft that are needed to fill the decks of a QE in a crisis, and for once the RN and RAF will present a unified front!


Good news if it becomes a reality.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Libya Saves Carrier Strike

Good news if it becomes a reality.
[Mod edit] No need to quote a lengthy article in the next post. Mostly removed.[/mod edit]

Hopefully the RAF will stop playing silly buggers and accept that the F35C should step-up as the Tornado replacement for deep strike. Bin the idea of going for A's in the long run and push for more C's.

Make Typhoon all it can be and invest in 6 x Sqn's of F35C plus conversion unit. The UK will then have the capacity to surge aboard the resident QE class and still have enough airframes to keep the RAF land lubbers happy. 3 x F35C FAA sqn and 3 x F35C RAF sqn. 36 airframes aboard a QE will be about as good as it gets based on 12 aircraft per sqn.

The other question mark is carrier based refuelers, a small number of F35C's will need adapting in the event the deck is out of order and aircraft have to buddy-buddy until the problem is solved.

The one issue with a soft launch maritime Fire Shadow is the wings - do they fold? Otherwise I envisage them being fired at 30 degrees in a fashion similar to Harpoon.With a potential heavy weapons load of TacTom for the Astute Class, the less capable but far cheaper Fire Shadow (or similar) would be a plus for both land and surface applications. The army/navy FAC's are used to controlling land and sea based GFS, adding Fire Shadow to the mix gives you added range beyond even MLRS.

The following is a no brainer and should be applied to those Navies operating smaller carriers (Spain, Italy and possibly Aus)

DSEi: Thales outlines Sea King 7 replacement proposal
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swerve

Super Moderator
Hopefully the RAF will stop playing silly buggers and accept that the F35C should step-up as the Tornado replacement for deep strike. Bin the idea of going for A's in the long run and push for more C's.
There is no idea of going for As in the long run. The plan is, as it always has been, to operate a single type of F-35. It was B, now it's C.

The RAF & RN said years ago that they'd like 150. That was cut to 138. There's been no official statement of further cuts, though on current trends it does seem likely. 40-50 has been suggested as an initial purchase, which implies that the planning total is significantly more, but I wouldn't be surprised if no decisions have been made yet, & the RAF & FAA are just keeping their fingers crossed that they'll get a half-way sensible number. The production line should be open for a long time, so topping up the initial order will be possible.

The F-35C shouldn't need adapting for buddy-buddy refuelling, just the integration of an existing buddy refuelling store - which we make in the UK.

Fire Shadow has been mooted by the manufacturers for vertical launch, IIRC. The original configuration certainly had folding wings. The design has been modified, but I've not heard that the wings no longer fold.

Italy already has an AEW Merlin in service, with an Italian radar.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no idea of going for As in the long run. The plan is, as it always has been, to operate a single type of F-35. It was B, now it's C.
I've always heard this suggestion mooted by the rabid pro RN folk - never by anyone from the RAF - I've never understood why it was a concern as suggesting buying the A is almost an invitation to get the entire order cancelled. As in..you want the A model, which we can't operate on carriers? Tell you what, better idea, carry on with your Typhoons and we'll bin the entire order...salami slicing isn't the way forward dear boy, hard times etc, England expects...

I know there's bad blood between the services and stuff but I do wonder why this hoary old rumour keeps being dragged out without any basis at all. As you say, the production line is open for a looong time to come - hopefully we'll get something near the 138 or so in time.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'd say rabidly anti-RAF, rather than rabidly pro-RN. I'm very pro-RN indeed, but I'd hate to be associated with some of the RAF-haters out there, or the twaddle they peddle.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Home | Royal Navy

The RN has updated its website with a great deal more information and video presentations

Under future ships, they comment on the T26 as follows:

Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships. The vessels will be among the most versatile ever to sail under the White Ensign, serving as submarine-hunters, general duty warships, survey ships and mother ships for tomorrow’s mine warfare forces. Right now there’s an 80-strong team of naval and civilian engineers working on the designs in Bristol. By the mid-2030s the Type 26 will be the backbone and workhorses of the Royal Navy.

Looks like C3 is dead and buried if the T26's are now expected to replace minehunters (15 Sandown and Hunt now in service) and survey ships? Does this mean we are now looking at around 6 x T45 &13 T26 AsW (19 in total), or are some of the T26 going to have the AsW downgraded on selected vessels (no towed array for example) and replaced with deployable MCM capabilities? Or will all vessels be fully AsW capable, but also have the option to deploy MCM submersible ROV's? Hopefully the latter, it will be first time in a long time that MCM capabilties will be able to keep up with the rest of the fleet. To offset the loss of 15 dedicated MCM, you will need to allow for all T26 to have the abiltiy to carry a deployable MCM package.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
13 T26 isn't going to be anywhere near enough if its supposed to replace survey and MCM craft as well.
Whilst I fully support the cost savings and practicality of using a T45 hull and legacy equipment from the T23's (CAMM, Phalanx, sonar and radar) and also building in a removable MCM ROV (transferred from the current MCM), 13 is definitely not enough (based on the often quoted 19 escorts plan). Hopefully the RN will have the opportunity to add later batch's as the economy improves and other countries buy-in (Brazil for example), otherwise you are right 13 is not enough to cover the amphib/carrier fleet and maintain a presence in the North and South Atlantic, Med, Gulf, and Caribbean with the occasional FPDP visit thrown-in.

One can only hope that the Navy brass have sacrificed C3 in a realistic attempt to secure more GP T26 in the long run.

I'm also hoping based on these numbers that CAMM will be retro-fitted to the QE's and Albions, or at least have the capacity to be fitted in pallet form should the threat require it.
 

Repulse

New Member
Home | Royal Navy
Due to arrive from 2021 onwards, the Type 26 Frigate will be the workhorse of the future Royal Navy. The ships are intended to replace not just existing Type 23 Frigates but also minehunters and survey ships. The vessels will be among the most versatile ever to sail under the White Ensign, serving as submarine-hunters, general duty warships, survey ships and mother ships for tomorrow’s mine warfare forces. Right now there’s an 80-strong team of naval and civilian engineers working on the designs in Bristol. By the mid-2030s the Type 26 will be the backbone and workhorses of the Royal Navy.

Looks like C3 is dead and buried if the T26's are now expected to replace minehunters (15 Sandown and Hunt now in service) and survey ships? Does this mean we are now looking at around 6 x T45 &13 T26 AsW (19 in total), or are some of the T26 going to have the AsW downgraded on selected vessels (no towed array for example) and replaced with deployable MCM capabilities? Or will all vessels be fully AsW capable, but also have the option to deploy MCM submersible ROV's? Hopefully the latter, it will be first time in a long time that MCM capabilties will be able to keep up with the rest of the fleet. To offset the loss of 15 dedicated MCM, you will need to allow for all T26 to have the abiltiy to carry a deployable MCM package.
I suspect what they mean is that the T26 will be able to carry and operate UAVs, USV's and UuSv's. In this month's warship world they had an article on the MHPC (successor to the C3 programme). The RN bod said that they are focusing on the new unmanned technology at the moment to prove it on the Hunt class before they commission any new vessels. The Hunt class will be upgraded to last till 2030, and they are planning to build 10 vessels (also will replace the Echo class).

I do wonder though if the Sandowns will be phased out with the arrival of the T26. My understanding is that they are for deep water MCM operations, which with new technology a T26 could do.
 

kev 99

Member
Whilst I fully support the cost savings and practicality of using a T45 hull and legacy equipment from the T23's (CAMM, Phalanx, sonar and radar) and also building in a removable MCM ROV (transferred from the current MCM), 13 is definitely not enough (based on the often quoted 19 escorts plan). Hopefully the RN will have the opportunity to add later batch's as the economy improves and other countries buy-in (Brazil for example), otherwise you are right 13 is not enough to cover the amphib/carrier fleet and maintain a presence in the North and South Atlantic, Med, Gulf, and Caribbean with the occasional FPDP visit thrown-in.

One can only hope that the Navy brass have sacrificed C3 in a realistic attempt to secure more GP T26 in the long run.

I'm also hoping based on these numbers that CAMM will be retro-fitted to the QE's and Albions, or at least have the capacity to be fitted in pallet form should the threat require it.
C3 hasn't existed even on the drawing boards for years, it's time we all dropped using the term as it's redundant, MHPC was seperated from the FSC programme for a reason, everyone thought that C3 was going to be a mini frigate/corvette, mini LCS, MHPC never was going to be.

With RN staff talking about MHPC in the press it sounds like the MOD is giving out mixed messages again.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
I suspect what they mean is that the T26 will be able to carry and operate UAVs, USV's and UuSv's. In this month's warship world they had an article on the MHPC (successor to the C3 programme). The RN bod said that they are focusing on the new unmanned technology at the moment to prove it on the Hunt class before they commission any new vessels. The Hunt class will be upgraded to last till 2030, and they are planning to build 10 vessels (also will replace the Echo class).

I do wonder though if the Sandowns will be phased out with the arrival of the T26. My understanding is that they are for deep water MCM operations, which with new technology a T26 could do.
That would make a lot of sense, having a vessel (T26) which can deploy with the ambib group and be able to deal with a mine threat without having to wait for slower MCM vessels would bring much to the table and save time. As long as the Gov doesn't turn around and say - well you don't need a dedicated MCM fleet now, just stick with the escorts and embarked MCM ROV's.

There is plenty of info in the public domain covering ongoing work with a number of projects, including MCM. The attached link shows a 2010 presentation provided to Dstl.

Slide 25 is interesting and offers a neat upgrade for vessels currently fitted with secondary or primary 20, 25 & 30mm guns.

http://www.bipsolutions.com/events/dtic10/pdf/dr10_andyflinn.pdf
 

kev 99

Member
Combined 20mm and LMM mount looks interesting, but I would suggest that some of those projects are now out of date for example it looks like the 155mm has bitten the dust.
 
Top