The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
MSI - Defence Systems' LTD
I'd prefer if it was a 30mm gun, as then it would probably better interface with the ammo, maintenance routines & spares that the RN already has.
Having said that 20mm might interface with Phalanx ammo ???
Nice idea though.....
SA
I don't think it is replacing the MHPC requirement, more complimenting it. I think the new RN website is badly worded. Lets face it if you can put unmanned MCM equipment on board a frigate and that frigate can deploy the system where required anywhere in the world then you might as well do it! They will still need MCM vessels, and Surveys etc I should think for jobs where it just isn't value for money to send a full blown surface combatant>
I also notice this new website is very quiet on how many Type 26's the RN will get!
i think the RN is in a very sad position where it does not know what its going to get. just look at all the plans of the past - new ship numbers cut, ships retired early, plans stopped ect ect must be very hard to put up anything on the website too bold as tomorrow it may well not happen.I also notice this new website is very quiet on how many Type 26's the RN will get!
That's how I'd understood it so far, so hopefully it's just a case of poor wording and that they will go for MHPC (which I think is an an excellent way of getting dual use out of the mine hunter replacements)I don't think it is replacing the MHPC requirement, more complimenting it. I think the new RN website is badly worded. Lets face it if you can put unmanned MCM equipment on board a frigate and that frigate can deploy the system where required anywhere in the world then you might as well do it! They will still need MCM vessels, and Surveys etc I should think for jobs where it just isn't value for money to send a full blown surface combatant>
I also notice this new website is very quiet on how many Type 26's the RN will get!
As for Type 26, any figure they quote today is wishful thinking - I *believe* BAE are contracted to deliver a number of ships equivalent to both CVF and 13 Type 26 but we're talking a program spanning twenty years.
kev 99
Member
Exactly, the number of ships BAE is contracted to deliver is meaningless in attempting to decipher the number of T26s the RN will get, there's nothing to stop BAE from being contracted to build something else instead of Frigates and they would be equally as relevent to the total as a T26.
Reading various articles and best guesses by semi-informed pundits would suggest there is in the order of 5.2bn planned for these two projects. 4bn for the T26 (to replace the T23) with a target of 13 vessels at approximately £300mn each. 1.2bn to for the MHPC to replace both MCM classes and the two Echo vessels. There has been no mention of a River class replacement.
Taking all the money from the MHPC programme could give 17 T26s max. A surface fleet which consists of 27 "warships" (6 T45, 17 T26s and 4 Rivers) would be a reduction of a 1/3 from the current 40 (6 T45s/T42s, 13 T23s, 15 MCM, 4 Rivers and 2 Echos). This does seem too drastic even for the MOD and their current financial difficulties.
I can accept that with some scaling back the ocean survey role could be done by a general purpose T26, which now people (mostly on forums mind are referring to as a T27). A T27 could also cover task group MCM duties, but I think smaller / cheaper MHPC vessels are still required for costal survey / MCM duties. With over the horizon unmanned solutions being suggested for MCM then the requirement for a fiberglass hull goes away. As such a son of Clyde type vessel could fufil this smaller requirement: something like:
Shipbucket - Alternate Universe/GB OPV C3 Son of a River 1b AU.gif
So in my view 6 T45s, 8 ASW T26s, 8 GP T27s and 8 Clydes mk IIs could be a reasonable replacement for the current "warship" surface fleet.
The River's are pretty young, although given where they operate one would expect them to have reasonably shortish lives in comparison to major RN units which now seem to spend a lot of time in the calmer waters of the ME and Med. The MoD may just be planning to renew their lease, these aren't RN owned ships remember?
My second trip to DSEI last week unfortunately didn't result in any further pictures of the T26/GCS on the BAe stand, they were a bit crowded when I walked over and I was tied up in meetings the rest of the time. However the new (to me) design I posted a picture of had a decent sized mission bay taking up all of the area under the flight deck, plus a bit more.
They'd constructed the model's flight deck out of perspex so you could get a better look, I'm guessing that's not a material choice they'll carry forward into the actual build phase ;-)
The mission bay had models of a RIB, some sort of UUV plus a ISO standard looking transport container sitting line abreast and quite a bit of extra space.
I agree with earlier posters who suggest that bad wording on the RN site probably means that they are looking for the T26s to replace some, not all, of the current fleet in the mine hunting/sweeping role. Fast deployment of MCM equipment on board a frigate makes sense in preference to waiting around for the slower dedicated units. I guess they'll be building the patrol/survey/MCM replacement class on the cheapish with max speeds in the 20knot range, which is perfectly reasonable.
WillS
I understand that the planning assumption is still a one for one replacement of the remaining Type 23s. Of course a government could just decide to cut the T23s back to 10 and then do a one for one replacement of those 10 :-(
I stumbled across an article on the Flight Global site today which indicates that MBDA are pitching the Fire Shadow loitering munition, being introduced into army service next year, for naval use.
Obviously this is more of a sales pitch than a defined requirement but it looks interesting.
WillS
The vessel assigned to the Falklands will probably need upgrading or doubling up in the long run. Now they have found oil and a rig and FPSO are scheduled to be moved to the Islands.
The resident HMS Clyde has been accompanied by a fleet tanker of late to enable continuous patrols in the area.
Once the Islands start generating revenue from oil they can pay for the lease of a more capable OPV (or two) crewed by a mix of RN and local RNR, hopefully with an organic helicopter, CAMM or Phalanx and something bigger than a 30mm gun.
The resident HMS Clyde has been accompanied by a fleet tanker of late to enable continuous patrols in the area.
Once the Islands start generating revenue from oil they can pay for the lease of a more capable OPV (or two) crewed by a mix of RN and local RNR, hopefully with an organic helicopter, CAMM or Phalanx and something bigger than a 30mm gun.
If Rockhopper, as reported, really do invest $2bn in oil-extraction related infrastructure in the Falklands then I imagine they'll want the UK Govt to assure them that military assets deployed are sufficient to ensure uninterrupted production. That might mean more RAF Typhoons rather than more RN as I understand the main role of Clyde is enforcing fisheries licensing policies, another important source of revenue for the Island's government. Of course, that might change if Argentina's much reported & repeated plan to expand submarine capabilities comes to fruition and the RN decided it needed ASW capabilities down there to protect rigs.
I've seen statements from the Island council in the past (& of course I can't find them at the moment) to the effect that they'd like to be able to generate enough revenue to pay the UK's military costs of defending the island, operational costs presumably. They are self-sufficient financially in non-military expenditure at the moment and extending that to the military side of things would blunt any cost criticism from the usual suspects back here in the UK who might propose ditching the islands if things with Argentina get a bit hot again.
Didn't the Falkland's Govt lease a fisheries patrol vessel, and arm it, for while in the last decade independent of UK MoD? I seem to remember that it took a more 'robust' approach to fisheries protection than is normal from RN vessels, firing on and arresting a Taiwanese fishing vessel that didn't have a license?
WillS.
You really need a sizable surface vessel to patrol the gazetted area around the rig and FPSO. There will be a steady stream of tankers coming in to off-load unrefined product from the FPSO. Depending on the amount being pumped and size of the FPSO it could fill-up in three days.
I suspect the crude will be traded on the open market and tankers from a myriad of different nations will be coming in to tank-up before returning to the nearest refinery, even Argentine flagged vessels. This steady stream of tankers will need to be randomly inspected, we wouldn't want to see a bunch of patriots arriving from a tanker onto the rig claiming Argentine sovereignty? Plus rigs attract fish, fish attract trawlers, so the gazetted area needs closely monitoring.
Also it's not just about an Argentine threat of blockade or direct strike, the threat of a major accident in the South Atlantic involving the rig, FPSO or tanker remains very real. If realised it would require a surface vessel able to respond and assist, preferably one which can host a helicopter and evacuees.
Going back to the T26, BAE gave a pretty comprehensive ('propaganda') brief at DSEi about ongoing design work.
The speaker confirmed the RN's intention to have 19 escort hulls, not including replacement for MCM/Patrol ships.
Size - bigger than a T22/23, smaller than a T45. The T23 will be used as a test bed for equipment to avoid delays/cost overruns experienced with the T45 programme.
Modularization will be the key to allow for incremental upgrades etc.
Key focus on: stability, deployability (UAV, boats & helo's), VLS, CAMM, 5 inch medium calibre gun, premium silent running AsW platform and crew retention.
http://www.baesystems-dsei2011.co.uk/News/Global-Combat-Ship-Type26
Last edited:
Great link on the T26 riksavage. Sounds like the MCM / Survey claims of the T26 was marketing rather than any shift on MHPC.
Interestingly, no mention of AsuW missiles beyond the mention of a VLS. Looks like the RN use of the Harpoon could stop with the T23... Good to hear though that the hanger will be able to carry two wildcats.
I hope the RN does get a minimum of 13, still hoping for a few more though...
Interestingly, no mention of AsuW missiles beyond the mention of a VLS. Looks like the RN use of the Harpoon could stop with the T23... Good to hear though that the hanger will be able to carry two wildcats.
I hope the RN does get a minimum of 13, still hoping for a few more though...
The briefing cleared up many issues, which had previously been a victim of the fog of war and rumour control. The VLS system should hopefully be versatile enough to cater to anti-ship, anti-sub and land attack munitions developed over the coming decades. Other work currently being coordinated via a number European partners covered at the same event will hopefully be used by what ever VLS/gun system is finally positioned aboard the T26.
http://www.baesystems-dsei2011.co.uk/News/Precision-Guided-Munitions
BAE appear pretty driven to deliver on budget, on time and do look to have their s*it in one sock for a change when it comes to promising a realistic platform fit for role.
I think the Falklands govt. still has a patrol vessel.
[Digression]
Falklands GDP per head was about 60% of the UK level in 1980, & allowing for higher prices of most goods because of transport costs, real incomes per head were lower still, except where raised by aid from the UK.
In 2007 it was 45% higher than the UK level.
[/Digression]
FluffyThoughts
Member
By 2030, when the last T-23 GPs (as they will be by then) are starting to be phased aren't we expecting a hypersonic A/SSM?
Ah: finally google finds the link: MBDA Unveils Concept of Hypersonic Strike Missile.
kev 99
Member
I'm being perdantic I know but it's just a concept at the moment MBDA are seeking customers and funding to develop it and it doesn't appear that it's in response to any real declared need from the MOD.By 2030, when the last T-23 GPs (as they will be by then) are starting to be phased aren't we expecting a hypersonic A/SSM?
Ah: finally google finds the link: MBDA Unveils Concept of Hypersonic Strike Missile.
FluffyThoughts
Member
It's nineteen-years from delivery, and Harpoon is how old? Without being pedantic; surely the 'Entente' [sic] will be leveraging MDBA over the next fifeteen years?
If T-26 will end-up with 16-tubes (+ dispersed CAAMs) why not look at a VLMS from said silos? Worst case is 'Doing-a-Swerve': Fill-'em-up with 10-hour loiters and forget about the bucks-for-the-bang...!
P.S.: It is early-days at-the-mo'. I do expect Harpoon to be cross-decked/upgaded, but I also expect MDBA will centralise around core-competences (especially after '2020').
kev 99
Member
Maybe, but I'm just not convinced that this concept will go anywhere
It's nineteen-years from delivery, and Harpoon is how old? Without being pedantic; surely the 'Entente' [sic] will be leveraging MDBA over the next fifeteen years?
If T-26 will end-up with 16-tubes (+ dispersed CAAMs) why not look at a VLMS from said silos? Worst case is 'Doing-a-Swerve': Fill-'em-up with 10-hour loiters and forget about the bucks-for-the-bang...!
P.S.: It is early-days at-the-mo'. I do expect Harpoon to be cross-decked/upgaded, but I also expect MDBA will centralise around core-competences (especially after '2020').