The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

I'd love to know what drives people to do this, apart from sheer stupidity of course :roll

Even for a troll your lack of intelligence is stupendous.

EDIT: I know I shouldn't comment on such posts, but I can never resist. Its the Iron filings to a magnet idea

 

[Lindermyer]

1) Why in the RN thread

2) is there an english translation

 

[WillS]

If its true, then that's excellent. But as always I fear its not going to happen, after all how do you just not notice a spare £2.1billion hanging around?

Remember, this is the MoD. Nothing surprises.

I think the £2.1bn is what they've identified as extra money now available for kit purchase, over an undefined period, after the recent cuts and rationalisation rather than cash they've found stuffed down the back of a sofa somewhere ;-)

I can personally attest that MoD has been coming down very hard on suppliers, pushing for reductions on purchase prices and ongoing support, over the last year or so.


WillS

 

[RobWilliams]

Remember, this is the MoD. Nothing surprises.

I think the £2.1bn is what they've identified as extra money now available for kit purchase, over an undefined period, after the recent cuts and rationalisation rather than cash they've found stuffed down the back of a sofa somewhere ;-)

I can personally attest that MoD has been coming down very hard on suppliers, pushing for reductions on purchase prices and ongoing support, over the last year or so.


WillS

True, but i'd have thought even the most basic accountant would have realised that there is a pretty substantial gap in the books or even that a gap could develop over time.

If it was a smaller figure i could understand it getting lost in the paperwork. But £2.1billion? No

Hopefully it doesn't get wasted on pointless projects which aren't needed, but that of course relies on the amount being close to what they expected. Although saying that, if they weren't sure on an approximate value i'm fairly sure they wouldn't have published it.

 

[StobieWan]

It seems too good to be true, the article indicates that the £2.1billion will be spent on funding the EF to mount Storm Shadow + Brimstone, pay to have all those Merlins converted to the RN and funding to start building the T26 frigate.

If its true, then that's excellent. But as always I fear its not going to happen, after all how do you just not notice a spare £2.1billion hanging around?

Same way you fail to notice you're 34 billion short - incompetence in managing the budget. If the margins of error get smaller, then we're heading in the right direction.

Getting Tiffy tidied away could easily be funded by skipping some rework on Tornado - or similar, so it's possible they've renegotiated some work from projects that weren't priorities to areas that are - much the same as Thales UK were prodded away from making more Starstreak and into more of those shiny laser guided rocket-a-mabobs for helicopters.

It's positives, less doom and gloom and seems to head off discussion of further cuts. It also indicates Type 26 may arrive on time, on budget and in spec if there's anything to go on in the recent reshaping of the supplier side.

I'll go sacrifice a small farmyard animal and pray for a further pair of Type 45's now

Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Same way you fail to notice you're 34 billion short - incompetence in managing the budget. If the margins of error get smaller, then we're heading in the right direction.

Getting Tiffy tidied away could easily be funded by skipping some rework on Tornado - or similar, so it's possible they've renegotiated some work from projects that weren't priorities to areas that are - much the same as Thales UK were prodded away from making more Starstreak and into more of those shiny laser guided rocket-a-mabobs for helicopters.

It's positives, less doom and gloom and seems to head off discussion of further cuts. It also indicates Type 26 may arrive on time, on budget and in spec if there's anything to go on in the recent reshaping of the supplier side.

I'll go sacrifice a small farmyard animal and pray for a further pair of Type 45's now

Ian

Yeah thats true, it's astonishing how these things can happen.

The T26 issue is interesting, IIRC weren't T45 ships 7 and 8 axed to bring forward the program? I'm not sure which one i'd go for, an extra T45 or two or ensuring the T26 numbers are maintained (whats the current figure? AFAIK it's 13 dropped from 18 but i can't link anything - gut feeling) More T45s maybe, but if they were built would they be any cheaper than £1bn a pop?

 

[Brian Murza]

''royal navy''-big mouth not a semaphore ''bravo zulu''!!

Posts Deleted By Mods - Your Behaviour is unacceptable;

 

[ProM]

It is very easy to be too critical of the MoD. I don't think most people realise what a complex operation it is. Take a beast like the QEC programme. Every little requirement that is missed has a cost over and above the baseline. Every delay could knock on to another supplier putting their cost up. Some of the sub-projects could turn out to cost more than expected - for instance when they finish the exploration of Portsmouth channel it might cost more to dredge.


When she is in service, what so you want them to if the price of food goes up. Or fuel. After they have set their spending plans for the next 5 years (which they have to do) . Tell the crew they have to eat less?


And those are just a few minor points on one programme, in one area, of one service.

The MoD do make cock ups, but lots of private companies manage to and get things wrong. And few of those are even remotely as complicated as MoD.

Plus when the treasury makes arbitrary decisions that mean that (for example) a senior figure in MoD, e.g. an IPT leader responisble for multiple projects is only allowed to sign off for expenditure up to £1k, and cannot fill spare posts, or employ much needed outside technical expertise: then guess what happens?.

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah thats true, it's astonishing how these things can happen.

The T26 issue is interesting, IIRC weren't T45 ships 7 and 8 axed to bring forward the program? I'm not sure which one i'd go for, an extra T45 or two or ensuring the T26 numbers are maintained (whats the current figure? AFAIK it's 13 dropped from 18 but i can't link anything - gut feeling) More T45s maybe, but if they were built would they be any cheaper than £1bn a pop?

That's a no brainer, I'd sooner have all 13 Type 26's with a good GP fit out, CEC, and a solid land attack capability than an extra pair of T45's.

I think originally that the numbers for Type 26 were meant to be replacing four Type 22's and 14 or so Type 23's but of course, the 22's are gone with the intention that their sigint role passes to the T45's as well as their command facilities.

I wouldn't mind an extra pair of T45's somewhere in the middle of that all if were possible though - those six will be hard worked, with the intention of keeping five at sea at any one time - and the presence of a T45 with that very capable radar, hopefully with CEC and an improved ASuW fit would be a solid reinforcing aspect to any RN or multinational task force,

Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

That's a no brainer, I'd sooner have all 13 Type 26's with a good GP fit out, CEC, and a solid land attack capability than an extra pair of T45's.

I think originally that the numbers for Type 26 were meant to be replacing four Type 22's and 14 or so Type 23's but of course, the 22's are gone with the intention that their sigint role passes to the T45's as well as their command facilities.

Thats true, the T26 armaments (bar 127mm/CAMM) are pretty unknown aren't they? IIRC France will use SCALP naval on their FREMMs so perhaps there is scope for a potential navalised Storm Shadow for land attack from ships? (Or would buying in SCALP more sensible?) as SCALP uses the Sylver A70 which AFAIK can carry Aster15/Aster30 (?) SCALP and Tomahawks (i'm not 100% on the last one but i'm pretty sure)

I suppose hoping for SCALP/Storm Shadow for the RN is a pipe dream however. I guess MBDA wouldn't be too keen on developing it unless the UK guaranteed an order.

I wouldn't mind an extra pair of T45's somewhere in the middle of that all if were possible though - those six will be hard worked, with the intention of keeping five at sea at any one time - and the presence of a T45 with that very capable radar, hopefully with CEC and an improved ASuW fit would be a solid reinforcing aspect to any RN or multinational task force,

Ian

The number i'm seeing thrown about more and more is 13 T26s (8 ASW and 5 GP), hopefully if economically things are sorted out in the future we might get a couple more T45s but I guess 6 isn't too bad (provided T26s take up the slack of some routine deployments) so could end up with 2-3 in a "task force"? (Or is that me being naive?)

How could the RN improve the T45s ASuW? I mean apart from something other than just Stingray on the Merlin/Lynx.

Bit off topic, but i was having a scan on depth charges on Wiki and found this pretty interesting picture

File:Asrocnuke1962.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The caption was

USS Agerholm (DD-826) launched an ASROC anti-submarine rocket armed with a nuclear depth bomb during the Swordfish test of 1962

 

[StobieWan]

Sorry, by "GP Fit" I mean "make sure they all have a wide capability" - as you say, we're looking at 8 + 5 ASW/GP - and that ties in with the proposed 2087 sonar upgrade for 8 type 23's which will be pulled through to the 26.

There's a nice article on designing the thing here:

Designing the Type 26 frigate | In-depth | The Engineer

Weps fit beyond Camm/127mm is still "your guess" but it looks like 16 strike length cells per side in a slightly angled array, 32 cells all told.

Harpoon might seem a bit long in the tooth by then - Perseus might be out of "slideware" by then - and maybe a navalised version of Fireshadow (I like that thing, looks dirt cheap, long endurance as a disposable UAV.)

Improving the 45's ASuW fit would be to give it one - they'd be due to be refitted with a 127mm gun I'd suppose so sticking Vulcano into the mix would help with boghammers etc. Sticking the Harpoon mounts from the spare T22's on would help but really, I'm looking for something intermediate that has a tolerable range with more rounds - something that can sink a corvette or whatever as that seems to be the sort of target we're looking at.

Ideally, a missile that can tackle land and anti shipping would be nice - space on a ship has to be justified so filling a cell with something that can be tasked against a wide selection of targets would be good.

 

[RobWilliams]

Sorry, by "GP Fit" I mean "make sure they all have a wide capability" - as you say, we're looking at 8 + 5 ASW/GP - and that ties in with the proposed 2087 sonar upgrade for 8 type 23's which will be pulled through to the 26.

There's a nice article on designing the thing here:

Designing the Type 26 frigate | In-depth | The Engineer

Ah i see, thats a pretty good article. Do you know of any recent T42 sales? Or are they all just going to be gutted + scrapped? Would be good to get a bit of cash for them at least.

Weps fit beyond Camm/127mm is still "your guess" but it looks like 16 strike length cells per side in a slightly angled array, 32 cells all told.

Harpoon might seem a bit long in the tooth by then - Perseus might be out of "slideware" by then - and maybe a navalised version of Fireshadow (I like that thing, looks dirt cheap, long endurance as a disposable UAV.)

Thats true, it'll be interesting to see what BAE pick but I wouldn't be at all suprised if they stuck with Harpoon.

Most of those will probably be filled with CAMM, but again i'll be interested to see which Sylvers they'll fit. Most probably the A50 like the T45 but i'd really like to see some A70s there, it'd give the T26 a big increase in munitions variation.

From the BAE model of the T26 linked below it looks as though BAE are at least pushing for the NG Fire Scout as it's been included in the model just poking out of the smaller hangar. Looking at Wiki, the requirements set by the USN required a range of 200km but Fireshadow does seem to make more sense as it's essentially a "smart bomb" which seems decent (but not a replacement for an anti-ship missile in my eyes )

A note for people who want to see the picture, I don't know why there is a big black box but if you click the "title" then it'll take you to the image, sorry for this

[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7515916@N08/4846799283/"]Proposed design for Type 26 Frigate - BAe Systems Model | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

Improving the 45's ASuW fit would be to give it one - they'd be due to be refitted with a 127mm gun I'd suppose so sticking Vulcano into the mix would help with boghammers etc. Sticking the Harpoon mounts from the spare T22's on would help but really, I'm looking for something intermediate that has a tolerable range with more rounds - something that can sink a corvette or whatever as that seems to be the sort of target we're looking at.

Ideally, a missile that can tackle land and anti shipping would be nice - space on a ship has to be justified so filling a cell with something that can be tasked against a wide selection of targets would be good.

I just realised i'd got my acronyms catastrophically wrong (I thought ASW was anti-ship warfare and ASuW was anti-submarine warfare :rosie) my mistake.

In that case I really agree, Sea Skua on the Lynx (for me) isn't enough. Recycling Harpoons would (i imagine) be a cheap answer to provide a new capability to the T45.

That'd be the perfect situation, a sea/land attack munition is ideal and so a few A70 launchers would be perfect. I mean being able to pack some SCALP naval or Tomahawks would give the T26 some real export capability (depending on if the US would sell Tomas or MBDA SCALP naval)

Then again they're both pretty expensive, maybe we're holding out for the US LRASM in 2013?

 

[exPrivate]

I know I am an armchair admiral, but don`t you think that a GP platform should be bigger than what is proposed for the type 26? With all those weapons and systems on it... IMHO the hull of the type 45 will be far better, or am I wrong?

 

[RobWilliams]

I know I am an armchair admiral, but don`t you think that a GP platform should be bigger than what is proposed for the type 26? With all those weapons and systems on it... IMHO the hull of the type 45 will be far better, or am I wrong?

Nah it shouldn't be bigger, in reality it's going to be a less capable C1 platform (GP is designated as C2)

I'm going to go ahead and copy'n'paste how swerve set it out in another forum as (to me) it sums up the 3 variants of the T26 very well

Three classes of combatant:
* a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1)
* a Stabilisation Combatant (C2)
* an Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel (C3).

C1 is envisaged as a multimission combatant, of about 6,000 tons displacement according to Janes. It is optimised for war fighting and would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group, offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force.

C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort.

One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two.

C3 is currently envisaged as a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 nm for constabulary and minor war vessel tasks. Cdr Brunton said "We see this vessel being used for maritime security and interdiction operations. It would also have a large mission bay aft, reconfigurable for special forces, MCM or a Lynx helicopter.

So in reality the C2 (GP) variant will most likely have less kit + systems aboard so would realistically not need a similar (or greater) size hull. On the contrary some people are of the opinion that a C1 size hull for a C2 is overkill given what it has to do.

There's some debate as to should the C1 + C2 both use a T45 hull OR use the T23 hull as the hull of a T23 is brilliant for ASW (IIRC current T23 hulls are lasting 2x as long as the planners originally thought due to the climates they operate in - the T23 was designed for trawling around the North Atlantic 24/7 not warm Arabic seas, someone please correct me if i'm wrong) and then if the C2 used that hull it would be easier logistically.

 

[exPrivate]

Thanks Rob! I`ve read that kind of stuff in many places (navymatters etc.)and still wonder why they are talking about one project with 3 variants, when the first 2 are supposed to be sth like 6000 t and the third just 2000 t? I would talk about 2 different projects...

 

[RobWilliams]

Thanks Rob! I`ve read that kind of stuff in many places (navymatters etc.)and still wonder why they are talking about one project with 3 variants, when the first 2 are supposed to be sth like 6000 t and the third just 2000 t? I would talk about 2 different projects...

No problem

Well I guess its not the tonnage thats the key factor in deciding the differences between the C1 and C2 but more based on their mission roles and the capabilities required as that does really make them 2 different ships

I mean with the C2 you could argue could seem like the bastard love child of the C1 and C3 in regards to its capabilities.

This is what Beedall says about the C2 (From Thales 2006 concept that is)

A key principle adopted by Thales for the concept is that specialist capabilities are not required as “core capability”, for example Mine Counter Measure (MCM) systems, hydrographic and oceanographic (H&O) survey equipments, and embarked military force ((EMF) facilities.

The core combat systems are restricted to:

Primary weapon and sensor systems requiring major integration in ship structure, systems and with command systems

Major physical sensors and weapons, including:

• Tactical MRR multi function radar (MFR)
  
• Missile Vertical Launch System (VLS )
  
• Main gun

Command and communications networks to support core systems and modular capabilities – open architectures (OSAs) are an essential enabler

This fit is suitable for a basic General Purpose frigate. Further mission specific modular enhancements and capabilities can then be added as required, those proposed include:

• MCM - Uninhabited Underwater Vehicle / Uninhabited Surface Vehicle (UUV/USV) systems
  
• Merlin helicopter for ASW or other roles (helo + containers for onboard support)
  
• EMF fit with additional RIBS, AUVs, RIBs + equipment containers
  
• Additional accommodation for command team with planning and tactical data link facilities
  
• H&O survey equipment
  
• Uninhabited Air Vehicle / Uninhabited Surface Vehicle (UAV/USV) fit for surveillance and other effects in the littoral
  
• Disaster relief – supplies, medical facilities, etc.

These systems are packaged in environmentally controlled ISO containers (preferably 20 feet long), with appropriate provisions for deck space and access; connections to ships power, heating, cooling and battery charging; and connection to ships command systems via a LAN for mission programming and data download.

Thales went in to considerable detail in relation to the ships organic MCM capabilities, which it has defined as "A capability that is vested in a non-specialist MCM platform, or vessel or platform that is not configured primarily for the conduct of MCM operations, which is able to deliver the required MCM effect immediately."

Must add in that the quote I previously said was posted by swerve in another forum can also be found in the following link

+ if that weapons list is anything to go buy, don't expect the C2 to be doing very much bar having a go at a bit of ASW (keeps fingers crossed for some Sylver A70s to be fitted - unlikely but i can dream!)

Navy Matters | Future Surface Combatant - Post 2004

 

[Waylander]

Is getting something akin a Sea Shadow really that much of a development issue?
I thought SCALP and Storm Shadow differ only in details, so most of the development work should already be done with SCALP.

 

[RobWilliams]

Is getting something akin a Sea Shadow really that much of a development issue?
I thought SCALP and Storm Shadow differ only in details, so most of the development work should already be done with SCALP.

That's what i thought, the only real difference is its longer range.

What I was thinking was that why would MBDA consider doing a Sea Shadow when the SCALP Naval is pretty much exactly the same product?

I mean theres no operational differences really between SCALP and Storm Shadow so I just thought that MBDA would be perfectly happy just to offer SCALP Naval.

 

[swerve]

Is getting something akin a Sea Shadow really that much of a development issue?
I thought SCALP and Storm Shadow differ only in details, so most of the development work should already be done with SCALP.

Scalp EG & Storm Shadow are the same missile except for the interface with the aircraft - but Scalp Naval is a very different missile. It has a different airframe, wrapped around some of the same innards.

Pictures:
Storm Shadow

Scalp EG
Can't see any difference, eh?

Now look at Scalp Naval.

 

[Systems Adict]

6 years between between docking for any ship is outrageous let alone for a high performance (in relative terms) warship.
Speed and economy would suffer horrendously and vibration and unknown effects from electrolysis would all be and engineering nightmare.
Still, with SDSR.........................!

Having worked with some of the newer vessels the RN / RFA have received over the last 10 years I can confirm & poo-poo a few things.

#1. 6 years between dockings = TRUE.

This would be EXTREMELY LOGICAL, as it will fit in with Long-Life maintenance sessions (where the ship will be out of service & out of the water for 6 months or more !).

However, there is an intermediate docking every 3 YEARS. The intermediate docking will last no more than a week or two & it will allow a full hull survey, replacement of cathodic protection annodes, cleaning the hull (Using high pressure ject washers), address any areas of paintwork damage & to remark the divers guide lines (3 inch White painted lines that are ALWAYS below the water line).

#2. COSTS / SDSR - This 'methodology' is to tie in with modern techniques, modern materials (such as the newer style paints) & legislation / guidelines (which are all designed to SAVE costs). The SDSR didn't instigate these changes, but it may well benefit from them IMHO...

I hope this clarifies a few things..

SA