The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Might be more of a shot across BAE's bow -I'm wondering if by decoupling the requirement for a UK built solution they're opening the field for DCNS etc to put in an offer?

I expect its just a nudge to BAE to try keep costs in check by emphasizing that if needs be, the MOD can shop elsewhere, that there are no guarantees that BAE would get the contract.

if anything it could be more beneficial as competition might make BAE be more competitive on prices, if BAE thinks the competition is serious that is.
That's my opinion anyway

 

[StobieWan]

Defenec Management may be reading too much into that. The actual quote only talks about not specifying a particular shipyard - i.e. BAES can close whichever ones they like.

However, the DIS states:

Hard to see how that could be retained if T26 is not built in the UK

Having had the chance to read it again I believe you're right- the article is conflating the remark about BAE having the commercial right to select whichever shipyards it requires for work as meaning "possibly non UK" which isn't the case. It's bad reporting I feel.

 

[kev 99]

Having had the chance to read it again I believe you're right- the article is conflating the remark about BAE having the commercial right to select whichever shipyards it requires for work as meaning "possibly non UK" which isn't the case. It's bad reporting I feel.

I'll get the hat out :frown

 

[StobieWan]

Ketchup?

Well, actually, it probably is *more* likely to be a shot across the bows for the Unions now than earlier - they're giving BAE carte blanche to place the work as they wish so a bit more latitude to say "Mm...about those working conditions..."


Thing is, this could all hideously backfire if stacks of work is placed in Scotland then the buggers become independent and we have to drag it back South


Ian

 

[1805]

Good profile for the RN with HMS Ocean in London for the Olympics. Also I think HMS Bulwark will cover the sailing in Weymouth. Maybe they will both play a role for VIP transportation/heliports. If it gets the RN good press all the better.

 

[ProM]

. If it gets the RN good press all the better.

Wouldn't have done if Ocean had hit the flood defence as she so nearly did - even though it was presumably pilot/tug error rather than RN

 

[Vanguard]

Wouldn't have done if Ocean had hit the flood defence as she so nearly did - even though it was presumably pilot/tug error rather than RN

Some pilots have come out saying that she would not have hit it and that getting close to the right hand side was typical for those conditions on the Thames, I really doubt that the idea they nearly made a major stuff up is true considering that they had Lusty up there last year and before that one of the three (before that four) at least once a year. I think the main thing that came out of it was the BBC calling it an eye-sore to London which I find quite interesting as Ocean is probably one of the better looking vessels in the Royal Navy considering that sitting moored up next to the Sydney Opera House, easily a much more photogenic area than where the Ocean’s moored, the Australians have the rusting hulks that were the Kanimblas. They could have always parked one of the old Type 42s in the Thames as a missile defence platform for its last job which would have looked a lot worse considering how they look these days sitting in Pompey.

One thing I was surprised to see was that she’s only carrying Lynxes it seems I would have thought she’d embark a couple of larger helicopters like Merlins, Sea Kings or Pumas – I know the Chinook fleet is desperately needed in Afghanistan with a lot of the others but surely there should be some medium lift ones around with a better deployment capability. I am also not 100% sure, but Lynxes cannot do that water landing that you see them do with the Sea Kings and Merlins which could be a handy trait should things go bad.

Finally does anyone know if the police helicopters will be using Ocean as well, I would assume the pilots could be trained to conduct such landings as a lot I believe are ex-military, would the aircraft themselves be able to take it?

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Surely you want a Lynx - 180kns - to go chasing Cessnas and-the-like than Merlins. Isn't Ocean also carring ASaC7s?

As for a Type-42 in the Thames: Surely the Royal Netherlands Airforce a better option? If the terries have evaded European air-space then we need to ask questions....

 

[spsun100001]

Unusual - the Guardian has an article on the Navy

Cuts force Royal Navy to drop Somalia piracy patrol | UK news | guardian.co.uk

I think it overplays things a little in that we do have an RFA there and her helicopter makes her a perfectly useful anti-piracy vessel. The message I take is more the one I've been banging on about for ages in that our very small escort numbers mean that the days of specialist vessles should be over and we need to get vessels such as the Type 45 fitted for and with.

In terms of multirole capability would there be any benefit (accepting that funds are unlikely) in modifying the Bay class to be more multi role e.g. enabling them to be fitted to carry helicopters or dry stores or as casualty evacuation ships etc. That might allow them to undertake useful roles such as anti-piracy or Carribean patrols which I'd imagine at the moment they are largely useless at due to the lack of a helicopter.

 

[Anixtu]

The Grauniad article fails to understand that the primary counter-piracy platform is RFA Fort Victoria with embarked aircraft and marines, not the transient frigates.

In terms of multirole capability would there be any benefit (accepting that funds are unlikely) in modifying the Bay class to be more multi role e.g. enabling them to be fitted to carry helicopters or dry stores or as casualty evacuation ships etc. That might allow them to undertake useful roles such as anti-piracy or Carribean patrols which I'd imagine at the moment they are largely useless at due to the lack of a helicopter.

Stores RAS is underutilised at present so not a priority. Do you mean 'casualty reception' rather than 'evacuation'? Evacuation is easy, wheel/fly them onboard and sail away. Bays are already fitted for Role 2 medical capability. Argus covers Role 3. Replace Argus with a new build rather than further cuts to the amphibious fleet.

Largs Bay has two stints on APT(N) to her credit, with Lynx embarked. The temporary hangar has however been sold to Australia.

 

[spsun100001]

The Grauniad article fails to understand that the primary counter-piracy platform is RFA Fort Victoria with embarked aircraft and marines, not the transient frigates.



Stores RAS is underutilised at present so not a priority. Do you mean 'casualty reception' rather than 'evacuation'? Evacuation is easy, wheel/fly them onboard and sail away. Bays are already fitted for Role 2 medical capability. Argus covers Role 3. Replace Argus with a new build rather than further cuts to the amphibious fleet.

Largs Bay has two stints on APT(N) to her credit, with Lynx embarked. The temporary hangar has however been sold to Australia.

I did mean reception rather than evacuation.

Thanks for your really informative reply. I guess I'm just curious as to whether we couldn't get more flexibility from these very large vessels with their large internal dock area and flat deck to enable them to release frigates from anti-piracy and patrol roles in low threat areas.

 

[1805]

I did mean reception rather than evacuation.

Thanks for your really informative reply. I guess I'm just curious as to whether we couldn't get more flexibility from these very large vessels with their large internal dock area and flat deck to enable them to release frigates from anti-piracy and patrol roles in low threat areas.

Well maybe anit piracy patrols are better undertaken by countries that do not have the same mad legal advice, they will just be able to shot them.

But I do agree the RN & RFA docks should be used for much more than just assault/logistics. Potentially patrol vessels, unmanned MCM, potentially much more useful at the task than a frigate. Plus if they are used more they will be more likely to be kept.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But I do agree the RN & RFA docks should be used for much more than just assault/logistics. Potentially patrol vessels, unmanned MCM, potentially much more useful at the task than a frigate. Plus if they are used more they will be more likely to be kept.

docks/LPD's have regularly taken up the C2-C4 roles in task force management in the MEO and Gulf

They have the capacity (capability, fitout and real estate) to pick up floating command roles - and often do. In fact the most highly regarded C2 assets in anti-piracy TF management have been other nations LPD's.

they're referred to as the "goldilocks" ships...

I'll let that one sink in, if the other DefProfs don't jump in and explain or no one gets it I'll say why later....

 

[RobWilliams]

Looks like the decision about B/C is about to be made (according to the Telegraph at least)

About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane - Telegraph

As much as i think choosing the B is - overall - the worse decision, the numbers for getting the carriers in service is rather tempting (if correct), but the choice still irks me.

The decision to install catapults on the new carriers was expected to delay the arrival of the new vessels until at least 2020. Delays in completing the conventional variant plane could have pushed that date back to 2023 or even later, leaving the UK without a working aircraft carrier for at least a decade.

By contrast, the development of the jump-jet fighter is proceeding more smoothly than expected, meaning the aircraft could be ready to fly from the new carriers as early as 2018.

 

[Seaforth]

As much as i think choosing the B is - overall - the worse decision, the numbers for getting the carriers in service is rather tempting (if correct), but the choice still irks me.

**Under the circumstances** it's the best decision.

However a better decision would have been to design the carriers from scratch with cats and traps and de-risk the whole program with the purchase of, say, 18-24 Super Hornets to (i) smooth the migration from STOVL to CTOL and (ii) dramatically reduce the capability gap.

 

[StobieWan]

**Under the circumstances** it's the best decision.

However a better decision would have been to design the carriers from scratch with cats and traps and de-risk the whole program with the purchase of, say, 18-24 Super Hornets to (i) smooth the migration from STOVL to CTOL and (ii) dramatically reduce the capability gap.

No point in buying SuperHornet at all - that'd be a couple of billion down the drain for no good reason.

Even if the carriers had been designed for CATOBAR ops from day one, assuming everything else played out as it did, we'd not have anything in the water til 2016 at the earliest, meaning we could just order LRIP F35C and be done with it.

 

[1805]

**Under the circumstances** it's the best decision.

However a better decision would have been to design the carriers from scratch with cats and traps and de-risk the whole program with the purchase of, say, 18-24 Super Hornets to (i) smooth the migration from STOVL to CTOL and (ii) dramatically reduce the capability gap.

Agreed, however the best descision would have been to for the RN to have pushed for this much earlier (80/90s) and had the requirement included in the initial design of the Eurofighter. A carrier option might have kept the French in as well. The greater numbers could have reduced unit costs and greatly enhanced export opportunities.

People should be less worried about the absolute performance of an aircraft and more about in service date. When you look at the opposition they are likely to face, the real danger in capability gaps.

 

[Vanguard]

Capability gaps of this nature were hard to forsee, the Harrier jump-jets would have gone on to 2020 had they been required to (or be it we would have had to reduce the fleet's size gradually over time). Realistically it has been rare for a nation to give up this sort of capability and then get it back on this timeframe, the only real examples being in the longer term such as Japan and Australia - really those nations are probably better off as they have a clean slate whereas ours will still be a bit dusty from before.

 

[StobieWan]

Capability gaps of this nature were hard to forsee, the Harrier jump-jets would have gone on to 2020 had they been required to (or be it we would have had to reduce the fleet's size gradually over time). Realistically it has been rare for a nation to give up this sort of capability and then get it back on this timeframe, the only real examples being in the longer term such as Japan and Australia - really those nations are probably better off as they have a clean slate whereas ours will still be a bit dusty from before.

Yep - you were doing a perfect 20/20 revision of the history of it all, Eagle would have received her refit to accept F4K and we'd have had two flat tops running through til the mid eighties, to be replaced by another pair of similar sized or slightly larger aircraft carriers at the time the Invincible's historically came into service.

Didn't happen.

 

[Neutral Zone]

No point in buying SuperHornet at all - that'd be a couple of billion down the drain for no good reason.

Even if the carriers had been designed for CATOBAR ops from day one, assuming everything else played out as it did, we'd not have anything in the water til 2016 at the earliest, meaning we could just order LRIP F35C and be done with it.

Personally I'd have specified CATOBAR from the outset but bought or leased Legacy Hornets being phased out for the USN so that a pool of British CARQUAL'ed pilots could have been built up over a decade and RN deck crew could have been trained by the Americans. The big mistake with the STOVL option was that it tied CVF and F-35B together, as has been said before the carriers are being built on time and budget, it's the JSF's various dilemmas that have jeopardised it.