The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

No, and no offence taken

I'm a naval enthusiast (no service nor industry expertise except a masters in Aeronautical Engineering), but I'm fairly well read and feel that the RN (and the UK) is a the tipping point where it will become irrelevant if it doesn't change.

The world in my view is closer now to how it was pre WW1 (minus the British Empire of course), where to succeed we have to engage with all countries not just Europe. The navy needs to reflect this and our budgetary restrictions, you can either concentrate on a marginally larger number of high end ships sailing around the Atlantic, or have more overall and be global.

Repulse, makes a very valid case and should be given a fair hearing. I often see people (and I would agree with them) of a naval blind government, and they could go further and say a naval blind UK public. But then what is the RN doing to correct this and raise its profile? Incidents like HMS Cornwall in the Gulf and the capture of the Chandlers do not help the RN cause. There is another PR disaster waiting to happen with the replacement of the RFA tankers; even if these cost a bit more there should be no consideration of foreign build (when last proposed a different world)...I could write the red top headlines myself.

There is a big issue of number of hulls and although people acknowledge the problem, they are so fearful of T26 number being hit they will not look at alternatives. It will not be hindsight when they are reduced, it will be 20+ years before the T26 are complete. If we look at: track record over the last 40 years, current/future finances and the lack of a credible tier 1 threat, is anyone really suggesting that it is not highly probable T23 number will be reduced before then. I wouldn't put much money on not losing 3 within the next 5 years? By the time the last T26 enters service we will be lucky to get away with 8.

An OPV does not have to be fitted with much to be very useful, a 57mm AA/anti FAC and a hanger for a Wildcat (but big enought for a NH90 to help exports) and a flight deck that could land a Merlin. This should be achievable on 2000-2500t with say max 25knot and 10,000 mile range (12 knots).

The focus of attacking this idea just for suggesting fitting CAMM is a red herring. If it was considered important you could get round this a number of ways, fit for but not with, or bolt on SeaRam or a similar concept with the use of CAMM (this might actually help CAMM exports). The RN could do what the MN did with the A69 only fit missiles (SAM in our case not SSM) when on long distance stations.

The key point is a helicopter provides so much capability, and the addition of a flight deck able to land and refuel a larger helicopter is a huge plus. This is not just about flag waving abroad.

I do like the CB90h and the RN should build an equivilant, but I think it would be better working from larger ships.

Plan for replacing 3 T26/T23 on a 3 for 1 basis and use the rest of the savings to fit the T45 with more VLS for cruise missles. Also the point about one heavy escort for ASW/GP/AWD for independent operation, is a sensible suggestion, you might not agree with it but others have done similar.

 

[Sea Toby]

There is a big issue of number of hulls and although people acknowledge the problem, they are so fearful of T26 number being hit they will not look at alternatives. It will not be hindsight when they are reduced, it will be 20+ years before the T26 are complete. If we look at: track record over the last 40 years, current/future finances and the lack of a credible tier 1 threat, is anyone really suggesting that it is not highly probable T23 number will be reduced before then. I wouldn't put much money on not losing 3 within the next 5 years? By the time the last T26 enters service we will be lucky to get away with 8.

An OPV does not have to be fitted with much to be very useful, a 57mm AA/anti FAC and a hanger for a Wildcat (but big enought for a NH90 to help exports) and a flight deck that could land a Merlin. This should be achievable on 2000-2500t with say max 25knot and 10,000 mile range (12 knots).

The focus of attacking this idea just for suggesting fitting CAMM is a red herring. If it was considered important you could get round this a number of ways, fit for but not with, or bolt on SeaRam or a similar concept with the use of CAMM (this might actually help CAMM exports). The RN could do what the MN did with the A69 only fit missiles (SAM in our case not SSM) when on long distance stations.

The key point is a helicopter provides so much capability, and the addition of a flight deck able to land and refuel a larger helicopter is a huge plus. This is not just about flag waving abroad.
.

I agree there will be more cuts in the future if only because there isn't any tier one threat, never mind the budget. It is very possible the Type 23 replacement program will end up like the Type 22 replacement program. France and the Netherlands have produced OPVs lately to make ends meet, and the British should do the same to maintain numbers in the fleet.

I believe the key is to keep the Queen Elizabeth carriers. When the crap hits the fan the carrier task force will be engaged. While it is true it takes time to build up your forces, the same can be said for any tier one threat as well. Tier one threats don't develop overnight.

 

[StobieWan]

I believe the key is to keep the Queen Elizabeth carriers. When the crap hits the fan the carrier task force will be engaged. While it is true it takes time to build up your forces, the same can be said for any tier one threat as well. Tier one threats don't develop overnight.

I can't see any point in keeping carriers on strength if we don't have an escort pool to draw on. We have just about enough AWD's but Type 23 > 26 has to spit out at least six and preferably eight Type 26 to generate an escort force to handle ASW for the carrier itself. That's presuming we need 1-2 AWD and 2-3 ASW/GP presence.

I'm hoping HMPC comes forward a bit and we get a few more hulls in the longer term but that can't impact T26 or we're effectively out of being a serious, balanced Navy.

Either we're in the game and build the escorts we need to remain top dog or we accept we're not in the game and don't need the hull numbers.

Fine with tossing some jobs to a something a bit heavier than an OPV (counter drugs, counter piracy both need a helo to work the area involved for instance) but a lot of the stuff the RN gets into needs a decent frigate.

Ian

 

[1805]

I can't see any point in keeping carriers on strength if we don't have an escort pool to draw on. We have just about enough AWD's but Type 23 > 26 has to spit out at least six and preferably eight Type 26 to generate an escort force to handle ASW for the carrier itself. That's presuming we need 1-2 AWD and 2-3 ASW/GP presence.

I'm hoping HMPC comes forward a bit and we get a few more hulls in the longer term but that can't impact T26 or we're effectively out of being a serious, balanced Navy.

Either we're in the game and build the escorts we need to remain top dog or we accept we're not in the game and don't need the hull numbers.

Fine with tossing some jobs to a something a bit heavier than an OPV (counter drugs, counter piracy both need a helo to work the area involved for instance) but a lot of the stuff the RN gets into needs a decent frigate.

Ian

I don't think anyone on here including me would disagree with you on the need for more T26, but in the real world it is very unlikely we are going to see them. There will always be more demands on the available funds...F35, and probably at some point P8.

The RN would be better focusing on getting all 8 T26 with TAS and fit more VLS on the T45 (and T26 they do get) for the GP/cruise missile capability.

If the RN adopted this approach it could delay the T26 to outside the QE/POW/F35 window of expenditure.

I don't know how many Storm Shadow the RAF used in Libya, if a T45 had been available fitted with a few more VLS for a cruise missile, there could have been a huge saving. I know SSNs can do but not in front of the press.

 

[Sea Toby]

I can't see any point in keeping carriers on strength if we don't have an escort pool to draw on. We have just about enough AWD's but Type 23 > 26 has to spit out at least six and preferably eight Type 26 to generate an escort force to handle ASW for the carrier itself. That's presuming we need 1-2 AWD and 2-3 ASW/GP presence.

I'm hoping HMPC comes forward a bit and we get a few more hulls in the longer term but that can't impact T26 or we're effectively out of being a serious, balanced Navy.

Either we're in the game and build the escorts we need to remain top dog or we accept we're not in the game and don't need the hull numbers.

Fine with tossing some jobs to a something a bit heavier than an OPV (counter drugs, counter piracy both need a helo to work the area involved for instance) but a lot of the stuff the RN gets into needs a decent frigate.

Ian

The British have six air warfare destroyers, DDGs, for one carrier task force. There isn't going to be a second carrier group as one of the carriers will be laid up. And if it were ever brought up into service in a sqeeze as a LPH most likely she will be apart of the carrier task force using its escorts. So eight to ten Type 26 should be sufficient. There is a considerable reduction of escorts needed when the fleet is down to one deployable carrier task force.

While OPVs won't impress during foreign visits and exercises alone, an OPV will look sharp being with one or two Type 26s in a surface action group or ASW group. The British have to understand they no longer have a large empire, along with a population and economic base less than Germany at the present time. Its very unlikey Britain will have to face an adversary alone in the future with a number of close allies with NATO. The Cold War is over and there is no tier one threat.

There is no need to deploy a destroyer or frigate to the Caribbean any longer. An OPV will be sufficient. The same applies to the Mediterranean outside of a carrier task force or a lone ship joining NATO exercises there.

I believe the British require top line escorts for a carrier task force, and a surface action group at best. The other escorts can be OPVs with sufficient gun or missile based CIWS not to mention ASW similar to France.

 

[swerve]

If the RN adopted this approach it could delay the T26 to outside the QE/POW/F35 window of expenditure.

Most of the T26 expenditure will be outside the QE/PoW window. We're upgrading T23s first, then building T26s & swapping kit over from the upgraded T23s. First T26 shouldn't arrive until after QE & PoW are commissioned, & the last T23 is now scheduled to retire & be replaced by a T26 in the 2030s.

It can't be outside the F-35 window. We'll be buying F-35s until well into the 2020s, perhaps into the 2030s.

 

[Repulse]

Off topic slightly and more of a question than a position... I understand that the RAF will be scrapping their tranche 1 Typhoons soon. Could these be upgraded for FAA carrier ops and what would be the ball park difference between that and the F35?

I think that we need a manned fixed wing aircraft for air defence but for surveillance and deep strike could we not buy the RAF some UAVs (which could be operated from a land airbase or carrier)? 50 Typhoons is more than enough for the FAA and would decrease training and throughlife costs. Plus, we wouldn't need to worry about RAF crews keeping upto date on carrier flying.

 

[StobieWan]

Off topic slightly and more of a question than a position... I understand that the RAF will be scrapping their tranche 1 Typhoons soon. Could these be upgraded for FAA carrier ops and what would be the ball park difference between that and the F35?

No, absolutely not, never at all. Tiffy isn't remotely suitable for carrier ops and any attempt to convert them to such amounts to a total rebuild and redesign. Neither would they actually be any use - I believe the Tranche 1's are being disposed of as they've been flown hard and are worn out.

F35C is the way forward. A joint buy for the FAA and RAF is the best thing for the UK right now and for the future.

I'd like to see some sort of UAV with carrier capability brought into service, again for both the RAF and FAA. Buying in larger numbers is economically more sensible - different platforms for different services doing pretty much the same job doesn't make sense.

Ian

 

[rip]

Where do the four attacking aircraft get their target data from? I mean, they're all at low level, are blind to anything further than 20 or so nm away - where did they come across the idea there's a ship out there to attack?

Presumably the ship and the aircraft have equivalent opportunities to glimpse one another unless you have some off board cueing - given that, my money is on the platform with the bigger radar with more power.

Unless your aircraft get a timely set of co-ordinates from some other source, they'll be juggling counter measures and evasive moves as they happen upon their target by accident.

That's an expensive way to wage war...

Ian

You ask good questions but there are good answers. True I used the worst case situation. The one where there is a taskforce off shore, making a political statement, which may or may not turn into a shooting war. I have been in exactly that situation. In my case the shooting didn’t start but I was in that guided missile ship, put out there on point, doing radar picket duty for the task force and I know just how lonely and parlous that feels. There are many other situations only slightly less parlous that happen far more often. Most guided missile ships are escorts and hence to the admirals at least expendable. Just talk to the old-timer’s and they will tell you.

As to your commit, “Where did they come across the idea there's a ship out there to attack?” The answers are almost endless. Here is just a few of the most obvious low teck possibilities, the fighters home in on the active search radars of the ship. These emissions are detectable to ESM receivers at one and a have times of the detection range of the radar and there is always some ground wave propagation that bends the RF waves below the radar horizon. These emissions can usual be detected by shore stations up to sixty miles away and the fighter aircraft themselves usually have ESM receivers. The fighters can be vectored in by another aircraft flying up to a hundred miles away cruising at high altitude using its search radar, while it is itself out of range of the missile ships weapons, and seems to be no threat. The fighters can be vectored in by an innocent looking fishing boat that could be flying any nation’s flag. The list is virtually endless without resulting to exotics. There is very little security in obscurity, especially near shore

 

[StobieWan]

You ask good questions but there are good answers. True I used the worst case situation. The one where there is a taskforce off shore, making a political statement, which may or may not turn into a shooting war. I have been in exactly that situation. In my case the shooting didn’t start but I was in that guided missile ship, put out there on point, doing radar picket duty for the task force and I know just how lonely and parlous that feels. There are many other situations only slightly less parlous that happen far more often. Most guided missile ships are escorts and hence to the admirals at least expendable. Just talk to the old-timer’s and they will tell you.

As to your commit, “Where did they come across the idea there's a ship out there to attack?” The answers are almost endless. Here is just a few of the most obvious low teck possibilities, the fighters home in on the active search radars of the ship. These emissions are detectable to ESM receivers at one and a have times of the detection range of the radar and there is always some ground wave propagation that bends the RF waves below the radar horizon. These emissions can usual be detected by shore stations up to sixty miles away and the fighter aircraft themselves usually have ESM receivers. The fighters can be vectored in by another aircraft flying up to a hundred miles away cruising at high altitude using its search radar, while it is itself out of range of the missile ships weapons, and seems to be no threat. The fighters can be vectored in by an innocent looking fishing boat that could be flying any nation’s flag. The list is virtually endless without resulting to exotics. There is very little security in obscurity, especially near shore

Mm - totally sympathise with anyone in that position - it really is worse case - as you say, if it's a cold war gone hot, there's dozens of simple ways to generate a track, because of course, anyone can just wander by, from the surface or the air. Just roll up with a hired boat, some hi def cameras and pretend you're the press.

You know you're gonna get hit the morning you stand to and the bloody thing *isn't* there...

There's no easy response to that one But, it's pretty much a doomsday scenario and I think most escorts would be hard pushed to get out from under that one - if you managed to get in from all points of the compass, that'd saturate a Burke, let alone a type 23.

Ian

 

[overlander]

Mercosur drafting resolution barring Falklands’ flagged vessels from all regional ports.

Mercosur member countries meeting in Montevideo for their regular six-month summit are drafting a resolution that would bar Falklands’ flagged vessels from all Mercosur members’ ports, following on the traditional Argentine policy and now openly supported by the Uruguayan government.
PrintShareComment


“Uruguay adopted a political decision” and is not turning back said Almagro


“We are circulating a draft declaration for vessels travelling to and from the Malvinas. The idea is that the vessels barred from one member country ports, are also barred from operating in other countries from the block”, said Uruguayan Foreign Affairs minister Luis Almagro during the Monday morning meeting with his Mercosur peers and Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.
Almagro added that “Uruguay has adopted a political decision on the issue (barring Malvinas flagged vessels). There are still juridical terms to implement, which are relevant because they will give shape to what will be applied from then onwards. We are working on them”.
The minister denied any Argentine influence, lobbying or pressure on the Malvinas flagged vessels issue and also commented on the UK disappointment with Uruguay’s position plus the fact Ambassador Nestor Moreira in London had been summoned to the Foreign Office.
“Our ambassador in the UK took notice of the British position”, revealed Almagro.
In a brief statement last Friday released by the British Embassy in Montevideo the Foreign Office said “it would be most disappointing that Uruguay decides to back the shameful attempts by Argentina to harm the economy and way of life of the inhabitants of this small archipelago (Falklands) by blocking access to free trade”.
The Foreign Office message added that Britain “has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and will continue to support the right of the Islanders to determine their own political future”.
“Nor we or the Falklands will yield to those pretending to intimidate or blackmail the Islands” concluded the release.
The British ambassador in Montevideo Patrick Mullee is scheduled to meet Minister Almagro on Wednesday following the two day Mercosur summit, when the block’s rotating chair will pass from Uruguay to Argentina for the next six months.

Mercosur drafting resolution barring Falklands’ flagged vessels from all regional ports — MercoPress

 

[swerve]

Off topic slightly and more of a question than a position... I understand that the RAF will be scrapping their tranche 1 Typhoons soon. Could these be upgraded for FAA carrier ops and what would be the ball park difference between that and the F35?

1. You're jumping the gun on the scrapping. If it happens, I can't see how it can be soon, because that would leave us without fighters. Currently, T1 Typhoons are the majority of our fighter force (the Tornado GR4 is a dedicated ground attack aircraft with only self-defence air-air capability from WVR missiles). We're struggling to maintain commitments with the current force, so scrapping over half of it would leave us completely stuffed. Given the expected slow introduction of F-35C, & the retirement date of Tornado, we'll need to allot Typhoons to ground attack or have a gap in that capability, & I don't see how we'll have enough Typhoons for that if we scrap all the T1s. soon.

2. Not a hope. It'd be cheaper to buy new carrier aircraft.

 

[StobieWan]

1. You're jumping the gun on the scrapping. If it happens, I can't see how it can be soon, because that would leave us without fighters. Currently, T1 Typhoons are the majority of our fighter force (the Tornado GR4 is a dedicated ground attack aircraft with only self-defence air-air capability from WVR missiles). We're struggling to maintain commitments with the current force, so scrapping over half of it would leave us completely stuffed. Given the expected slow introduction of F-35C, & the retirement date of Tornado, we'll need to allot Typhoons to ground attack or have a gap in that capability, & I don't see how we'll have enough Typhoons for that if we scrap all the T1s. soon.

2. Not a hope. It'd be cheaper to buy new carrier aircraft.

It's worse than that in that the T1's are the Tiffy force with swing role capability - so if they were removed during the window for retirement of Tornado,we'd be down to someone in a Tranche 2 flying past chucking hand grenades out the window. None of the Tranche 2 have any of the shiny stuff to do with blowing things up as far as I understand it.

 

[Sea Toby]

For those wondering whether the EMALs catapult will work with the new carriers and the F-35C, watch this video:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPqFokGjHoY&feature=related"]F35C takes off from EMALS electromagnetic catapult - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StobieWan]

For those wondering whether the EMALs catapult will work with the new carriers and the F-35C, watch this video:

F35C takes off from EMALS electromagnetic catapult - YouTube

Never doubted it but good to see anyway Kind of eerie watching a cat launch without any associated clouds of steam but it looks pretty good.

Ian

 

[RubiconNZ]

Never doubted it but good to see anyway Kind of eerie watching a cat launch without any associated clouds of steam but it looks pretty good.

Ian

Very true I don't believe the opening sequences to Top Gun would have the same dramatic effect with EMAL. I imagine the lower decks will be a lot quieter to.

 

[RobWilliams]

Redirect Notice

Sadly saw the image and didn't read its caption - 'Artists impression of one of the new carriers alongside an Illustrious class carrier' i didn't really notice it was a computerised image of the carrier until i zoomed in.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_CVF_4-Carrier_Comparison_lg.jpg

Can someone answer me this, if those numbers are correct then it looks like the QE class carries far less planes than its tonnage would suggest. I mean the Nimitz at 91k tonnes carries 90 aircraft and the 65k tonne QE class carries 40 (then looking at the CdG and seeing an equivalent number for a significantly smaller amount of tonnage), is that just a dodgy estimate from the MoD (unlikely) or am i looking at this too simplistically? (Could well be the problem).

The general feeling when reading through these last pages is pretty much doom and gloom, but from my PoV the future looks promising,total numbers being 6 T45s, 2 QE carriers with F35Cs, 7 Astutes, T26s (cant remember numbers). Just my juvenile naivety i suppose

Plus can someone tell me the latest status on whichever carrier is going to be the one whos future is undecided? I tried googling but i keep finding different solutions for it all of which are claimed to be true which involved keeping with rotation with the other carrier, sharing with France or complete sell of it.

 

[kev 99]

Redirect Notice

Sadly saw the image and didn't read its caption - 'Artists impression of one of the new carriers alongside an Illustrious class carrier' i didn't really notice it was a computerised image of the carrier until i zoomed in.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_CVF_4-Carrier_Comparison_lg.jpg

Can someone answer me this, if those numbers are correct then it looks like the QE class carries far less planes than its tonnage would suggest. I mean the Nimitz at 91k tonnes carries 90 aircraft and the 65k tonne QE class carries 40 (then looking at the CdG and seeing an equivalent number for a significantly smaller amount of tonnage), is that just a dodgy estimate from the MoD (unlikely) or am i looking at this too simplistically? (Could well be the problem).

The general feeling when reading through these last pages is pretty much doom and gloom, but from my PoV the future looks promising,total numbers being 6 T45s, 2 QE carriers with F35Cs, 7 Astutes, T26s (cant remember numbers). Just my juvenile naivety i suppose

Plus can someone tell me the latest status on whichever carrier is going to be the one whos future is undecided? I tried googling but i keep finding different solutions for it all of which are claimed to be true which involved keeping with rotation with the other carrier, sharing with France or complete sell of it.

A Nimitz class doesn't carry 90 aircraft these days; it's more like around 50 - 60, I've seen posters on some forums state that the spare space has since been used by installing additional equipement (no mention of what), CdG doesn't appear to carry that many either, and it will carry less once the Super Etendards are retired because the Rafale doesn't have folding wings.

 

[RobWilliams]

A Nimitz class doesn't carry 90 aircraft these days; it's more like around 50 - 60, I've seen posters on some forums state that the spare space has since been used by installing additional equipement (no mention of what), CdG doesn't appear to carry that many either, and it will carry less once the Super Etendards are retired because the Rafale doesn't have folding wings.

Excellent, for a while i just thought that our carriers were just unneccesarily 'flabby' (for the want of a better word) and that we could have had a smaller tonnage for the same amount of aircraft. When it says the QE carriers can hold 40 aircraft, thats including helicopters right?

Ah right, how much would the capacity of CdG decrease when the Super Etendards retire? Can the decreased number of Rafales maintain the ground attack ability of the Etendards to a reasonable level?

That brings me to another point i'd like to bring up, could someone give me a comparison of agility/dogfighting ability of the F35C? I mean i know its a pretty good ground attack aircraft i'm just curious about its air-to-air capability, i'm assuming its pretty good too.

 

[Sea Toby]

Excellent, for a while i just thought that our carriers were just unneccesarily 'flabby' (for the want of a better word) and that we could have had a smaller tonnage for the same amount of aircraft. When it says the QE carriers can hold 40 aircraft, thats including helicopters right?

Ah right, how much would the capacity of CdG decrease when the Super Etendards retire? Can the decreased number of Rafales maintain the ground attack ability of the Etendards to a reasonable level?

That brings me to another point i'd like to bring up, could someone give me a comparison of agility/dogfighting ability of the F35C? I mean i know its a pretty good ground attack aircraft i'm just curious about its air-to-air capability, i'm assuming its pretty good too.

Being a naval aircraft, it won't out dogfight air force fighters. On the other hand it will carry all of the newest BVR missiles the Harrier dreams of. So its an upgrade for the RN as a naval fighter. The key is seeing the enemy first, and it should easily win that contest being a stealth aircraft.