The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Repulse]

Been down this route before with the Type 21's though - light yacht built 2500 tonners criticised as being underarmed from the moment they entered service, did a fine job for the work required but when called to arms in the Falklands, served as little more than floating targets - no decent air defence, no scope for upgrades and not very survivable.

Thing is, if you swap the 5 GP type 26's out for say, 10 of these puppies, that's pretty much the MHPC buy soaked up. Or do you want to fund that too and have twenty odd not very combat worthy OPV's flitting around ?

I think you're gutting the RN to fulfil an imaginary requirement. There's no need whatsoever for us to be enforcing Pax Brittanica, the 21st century happened and we're living in it. Why are we pretending to be the global policeman when we're so greatly reduced in standing?

Strip out the GP type 26's and you're pulling the RN in two opposite directions leaving a very hollow middle.

Ian

Further to my comments to Hambo, my aim is to have enough high end ships so we can truly go anywhere and also to have a global presence to do all the day to day stuff that we don't currently do but should.

The fact is that technology now allows for minor war vessels to have real bite through the addition of helicopters, unmanned vehicles and modular weapons. The value of having a middle ground vessel is much less than it used to be as long as you low end can support these capabilities. So, in my view you need a high end ship with the size for sensor fit and survivability and a low end ship with long legs.

Also, functions such as survey and MCM are important for task groups too, so these light frigates will be part of any conflict just protected by the big boys.

 

[Hambo]

I'm sure the same argument was made when the government decided to remove the Falklands guard ship. Flying a few troops around the world is sometimes possible given that you have an airfield available, but hardly is cost effective nor does it give presence. By having a ship on station allows for local understanding to be developed and also a measured approach to an escalating issue before the big guns are drafted in. The reach of a ship with helicopters and UAVs is far beyond it's radar. It is also as much about humanitarian relief than war fighting.

This is not about engaging in the world through starry colonial eyes on the cheap. This about recognizing we need to engage and interact with all of the world and that we have global interests and responsibilities.

What would these ships be doing today you ask:
* North Atlantic: anti-drugs, anti-terrorism and surveying.
* Caribbean: Anti drugs
* Med: Gibraltar EEZ protection, surveillance and possible evacuation of civilians during the ongoing troubles
* South Atlantic: Falklands EEZ protection and anti piracy on the west coast of Africa.
* Indian Ocean: Anti-piracy, surveillance, surveying and anti terrorism.
* Gulf: Surveillance and MCM
* Far East: Humanitarian relief, surveying and assisting Brunei in EEZ protection.

Which of these warrant a first rate warship? How many of these could we do with the current T26 / MHPC plans?


I understand the point you are making about the danger of drawing funds away from the top end. But the reality is that without doing that the RN will be seen as increasingly irrelevant and funds / numbers will be cut anyway. Everyone seems to be putting their eggs in the T26 basket. I strongly believe it will be the fudge of momentous proportions with both the capability and numbers being cut leaving just 6 real first rate (go anywhere) ships.

What I am proposing is as well as building these light frigates (which will fufil the MHPC role also), we increase the budget for the 8 ASW by a third to make them proper first raters. In the future the RN should be going for a single first rate design rather than trying to have seperate ASW / AAW ones.

Repulse, thats seven parts of the globe that you want to have ships operating in, thats seven remote regions where you need a tanker and/or extensive port facilities to support these vessels, at a time when the RFA will get smaller, and the RFA will also be supporting the rest of the fleet. I don't think thats realistic with the current budget.

Assisting Brunei in EEZ protection? Do they or us really need to do this? How much surveying is there left to do anyway? Again, I can't see who is really going to be impressed by our "presence" in these regions, the world has moved on, the rest of the world can chose who they trade with and what alliances they make, poor Jonny foreigner will possess better ships than the ones you are proposing to make up the bulk of the RN.

You could put a dozen patrol boats to sea and drugs will still pour into the UK, it's a waste of time and shouldn't be anything than the odd training job for the RN, and not something to divert funds away from the first rate ships.

Rather than spend money on cheap ships that can't fight a war, I would spend the money on naval aviation, another squadron of F35, or fixed wing AEW or MPA.

 

[Repulse]

Repulse, thats seven parts of the globe that you want to have ships operating in, thats seven remote regions where you need a tanker and/or extensive port facilities to support these vessels, at a time when the RFA will get smaller, and the RFA will also be supporting the rest of the fleet. I don't think thats realistic with the current budget.

Assisting Brunei in EEZ protection? Do they or us really need to do this? How much surveying is there left to do anyway? Again, I can't see who is really going to be impressed by our "presence" in these regions, the world has moved on, the rest of the world can chose who they trade with and what alliances they make, poor Jonny foreigner will possess better ships than the ones you are proposing to make up the bulk of the RN.

You could put a dozen patrol boats to sea and drugs will still pour into the UK, it's a waste of time and shouldn't be anything than the odd training job for the RN, and not something to divert funds away from the first rate ships.

Rather than spend money on cheap ships that can't fight a war, I would spend the money on naval aviation, another squadron of F35, or fixed wing AEW or MPA.

You seem to have a very 2D view of the world and the RN. It is not world peace or all out world war you know - the RN can and does very useful work on a day to day basis now. It's not glamorous, but it is needed.

This is not a hark back to Britannia rules the waves, this is about being part of a global society not being just focused on world war and Europe... Plus you miss the point about these ships providing first rate capabilities such as MCM.

 

[kev 99]

What would these ships be doing today you ask:
* North Atlantic: anti-drugs, anti-terrorism and surveying.
* Caribbean: Anti drugs
* Med: Gibraltar EEZ protection, surveillance and possible evacuation of civilians during the ongoing troubles
* South Atlantic: Falklands EEZ protection and anti piracy on the west coast of Africa.
* Indian Ocean: Anti-piracy, surveillance, surveying and anti terrorism.
* Gulf: Surveillance and MCM
* Far East: Humanitarian relief, surveying and assisting Brunei in EEZ protection.

That looks like a whole lot of money to be spent on things the RN shouldn't be doing, you want the RN to be doing surveillance on the whole world? anti terrorism in the Indian Ocean? I would expect the rather large Indian navy to have a much better handle on that than a single RN OPV could ever do, ditto for the USN and anti-terrorism in the North Atlantic (what terrorism?). What 'ongoing troubles' are there that would require evaquation of civilians from Gibralter?

To be honest I can't really see much value in OPVs doing Humanitarian relief either.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To be honest I can't really see much value in OPVs doing Humanitarian relief either.

UKGOV and AUSTGOV are pretty muck in lockstep over this, so both RN and definitely RAN/BPC are now seen as dual use assets, with a growing emphasis on operations other than warfighting...

 

[Repulse]

That looks like a whole lot of money to be spent on things the RN shouldn't be doing, you want the RN to be doing surveillance on the whole world? anti terrorism in the Indian Ocean? I would expect the rather large Indian navy to have a much better handle on that than a single RN OPV could ever do, ditto for the USN and anti-terrorism in the North Atlantic (what terrorism?). What 'ongoing troubles' are there that would require evaquation of civilians from Gibralter?

To be honest I can't really see much value in OPVs doing Humanitarian relief either.

Why did we send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq? Surely the US could have done it all by themselves... The answer is that the fact we are there gives us a voice to help shape events and influence.

On the Gibraltar point - the Spanish are violating our territorial waters on a daily basis - should we send a T45? No, of course we shouldn't (yet)... We have conducted at atleast 2 evacuations in the past 10 years in the med; Lebanon and Libyia.

 

[kev 99]

UKGOV and AUSTGOV are pretty muck in lockstep over this, so both RN and definitely RAN/BPC are now seen as dual use assets, with a growing emphasis on operations other than warfighting...

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not?

But to clarify, what I mean I'm not sure how much humanitarian relief you can get out of an OPV, for example for most disasters it would make a great deal more sense to send an Amphib, and I can't imagine you would be able to carry many civilians in cases of evaquation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not?

But to clarify, what I mean I'm not sure how much humanitarian relief you can get out of an OPV, for example for most disasters it would make a great deal more sense to send an Amphib, and I can't imagine you would be able to carry many civilians in cases of evaquation.

you can get bugger all out of an OPV, but that doesn't stop the good idea fairey embedding itself into govt policy and dictating that warships (any warship) will do double duty as a grey water taxi.

i'm reinforcing that govt policy about the employment and utility of its military assets does not always have a relationship to sound logic and the reality of how those assets are best employed.

 

[kev 99]

Why did we send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq? Surely the US could have done it all by themselves... The answer is that the fact we are there gives us a voice to help shape events and influence.

To fight in a war, which might shape world events in that region having a British presence there means the chance of having a voice in shaping events there and influence with our allies. I don't see sending a RN OPV to fight non-existent terrorists in the North Atlantic as much of an opportunity to shape events in that region and even if they did exist our OPV would probably just get in the way of the USN/costguard, it would be a wasted asset. While we're at it a single RN OPV doing anti-terrorism on the door step of the Indian Navy (bigger currently than the RN!) is equally pointless.

On the Gibraltar point - the Spanish are violating our territorial waters on a daily basis - should we send a T45? No, of course we shouldn't (yet)... We have conducted at atleast 2 evacuations in the past 10 years in the med; Lebanon and Libyia.

Seriously? a few Spanish boats violating our EEZ does not mean we will need to evaquate civilians from Gibralter, the Spanish are not going to invade and take the rock back, Gibralter is not Lenanon nor Libya.

 

[Repulse]

To fight in a war, which might shape world events in that region having a British presence there means the chance of having a voice in shaping events there and influence with our allies. I don't see sending a RN OPV to fight non-existent terrorists in the North Atlantic as much of an opportunity to shape events in that region and even if they did exist our OPV would probably just get in the way of the USN/costguard, it would be a wasted asset. While we're at it a single RN OPV doing anti-terrorism on the door step of the Indian Navy (bigger currently than the RN!) is equally pointless.

Two points:

- Arms smuggling to the UK is a real terrorist threat.
- If the Indian navy was all powerful why are there foreign ships there now? Not all of these are warships!

Seriously, a few Spanish boats violating our EEZ does not mean we will need to evaquate civilians from Gibralter, the Spanish are not going to invade and take the rock back, Gibralter is not Lenanon nor Libya.

You are missing the point when I say based in the Med - I am not talking about evacuating Gibraltar!

 

[kev 99]

Two points:

- Arms smuggling to the UK is a real terrorist threat.
- If the Indian navy was all powerful why are there foreign ships there now? Not all of these are warships!

It might be a real terrorist threat but it's the sort of stuff that is checked for at ports by customs officials or in the case of unauthorised landings by RHIBS etc by coastguards, besides there are RN OPVs (Rivers) that are already on hand for boardings in our EEZ already.

The reason there are other navies there now is for anti piracy work as you well know, I can't imagine too many navies are sending OPVs there to do anti-terrorism patrols.

You are missing the point when I say based in the Med - I am not talking about evacuating Gibraltar!

Okay I've misintepreted you're point, but I don't see having a dedicated OPV presence in the Med to do evaquations as being a worthwhile way to spend scarce resources when a) it wouldn't be any good at Evaquations b) it's not far enough away that we couldn't send something better relatively quickly and c) even if we combine this with EEZ protection pointing big guns at rogue Spanish fishermen and the odd police boat is more or less another waste of time and money for the RN.

I don't mind the RN having OPVs for a few non-warfighting tasks but what you're suggesting is little more than a me-too presence in evey ocean in the world, it woudn't do us any favours and would be a huge waste of money, and quite frankly in certain cases I'd say it would leave the RN and the UK open to ridicule.

 

[Sea Toby]

Unfortunately, the RN is being reduced to 29k sailors. You won't get T26s in every ocean with those few sailors crewing other naval ships as well. To keep the same number of ships deployed overseas the RN needs ships with fewer crews, more OPVs.

The vast majority of OPVs have crews of around 50 whereas the vast majority of frigates have crews of over 100 reflecting fewer weapons aboard an OPV. It's really that simple. Instead of equipping every ship with missile systems, equip some of the ships with defensive gun based CIWS. Not every ship has to have fixed ASW torpedoes, SAMs, and SSMs. Helicopters can be equipped with anti-submarine and surface strike weapons.

On the other hand the RN should continue to deploy destroyer and frigate surface action groups abroad too, but not necessarily one in every ocean all of the time 24-7.

 

[StobieWan]

What I am proposing is as well as building these light frigates (which will fufil the MHPC role also), we increase the budget for the 8 ASW by a third to make them proper first raters. In the future the RN should be going for a single first rate design rather than trying to have seperate ASW / AAW ones.

They are - the T26 is one design with superior hull quietening which can be a GP design by simply deleting the TAS and some associated systems.

 

[Hambo]

In the news today, the Govt is now going to use 13,500 military personnel for that waste of time, Olympics 2012. As well as specialist bomb disposal and search, 7000 at peak times will be used for cordon security.

Another kick for our hard pressed forces with leave cancelled over the summer. You wouldn't be happy getting back home after months abroad only to be told to stand on point duty for the bloody Olympics, and it will be even more annoying if resources are withdrawn from the frontline to Police it.

 

[Repulse]

They are - the T26 is one design with superior hull quietening which can be a GP design by simply deleting the TAS and some associated systems.

Sure, but could it do the AAW role? I would like to see a drum beat of construction of say one first class escort every two years. Start 2020, and by the time you get to 8 it would be time to replace the T45s...

 

[Hambo]

Sure, but could it do the AAW role? I would like to see a drum beat of construction of say one first class escort every two years. Start 2020, and by the time you get to 8 it would be time to replace the T45s...

Type 26 will do local AAW with CAMM, the design phase is supposedly going to include options for customers so room for varying sized VLS and sensor fit depending on needs, so a customer might request a more AAW orientated design if required, the basic hull seems big enough.

Repulse, don't be offended if I'm wrong, but are you 1805? because pretty much all of these ideas are the same as posted over and over by him?

 

[StobieWan]

Sure, but could it do the AAW role? I would like to see a drum beat of construction of say one first class escort every two years. Start 2020, and by the time you get to 8 it would be time to replace the T45s...

It's a modular design with facilities to integrate all sorts of stuff and there will be an AWD variant offered for export. I don't think there are any plans to do that with the RN as far as I'm aware although I suppose we could do what the French have done by going from Horizon to doing a FREMM AWD variant.

It's a flexible and adaptable design put it that way, with scope to remove large sections and replace them in the future if needed as well as the more general use of modules in ISO containers. It's definitely not "one design for ASW and one for GP" is what I'm saying however. I don't think you'd want to be building them to replace the 45's however, the design would be a bit long in the tooth by then.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Type 26 will do local AAW with CAMM, the design phase is supposedly going to include options for customers so room for varying sized VLS and sensor fit depending on needs, so a customer might request a more AAW orientated design if required, the basic hull seems big enough.

Repulse, don't be offended if I'm wrong, but are you 1805? because pretty much all of these ideas are the same as posted over and over by him?

Odd you say that but some of the phrasing is very similar as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

In the news today, the Govt is now going to use 13,500 military personnel for that waste of time, Olympics 2012. As well as specialist bomb disposal and search, 7000 at peak times will be used for cordon security.

Another kick for our hard pressed forces with leave cancelled over the summer. You wouldn't be happy getting back home after months abroad only to be told to stand on point duty for the bloody Olympics, and it will be even more annoying if resources are withdrawn from the frontline to Police it.

If military personnel aren't willing to work when the UK shines to the rest of the world doing security operations during the Olympics, in my opinion those military personnel should be fired. No pride, no job...

 

[Hambo]

If military personnel aren't willing to work when the UK shines to the rest of the world doing security operations during the Olympics, in my opinion those military personnel should be fired. No pride, no job...

There are tens of thousands who have shown pride over the last decade of operations, and in supporting those operations.

Funny that 8 months from the games beginning they announce something like 8% of the armed forces will be dragged into the security operation. Why? Well the cynic would say the govt has realised private firms will cost more, it's cash pure and simple. There was always going to be specialist support, there is at party conferences, but it the govt wanted this show, they should pay civvy contractors to stand on point duty, not our troops who might have been shot at a few weeks before.

Of course, the US visit didn't raise any security concerns the other week did it? the whole thing is a money pit at a time when we haven't got any money.