Royston Vasey? Are you local?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Well, Barkway, near Royston - I'm over in Bedfordshire. Last time I was in Reading was for the half marathon (tottered over the finish line in 2:20 on the nail.)
kev 99
Member
You might want to duck, I think something went straight over your head
Spazsinbad gets into numbers on that and he's just joined here - ex A4 driver so he's got a good perspective on Naval aviation. Gist of it, a ski jump gets you into the air with a potentially higher MTOW - B's limit is internal fuel so the range isn't affected greatly. It does help get the thing into the air with more stuff hanging off of it so with a Day One VLO config and internal weapons and fuel only, no gain. Carrying stuff on pylons, you can get off with more gear, but of course, that's more to dump if you have to come back as the SRVL landing has limits to bring back weight that are much lower than the MTOW with a ski jump - meaning an immediate go around/abort will see lots of expensive stuff being dumped.
I caught the Royston Vasey thing but took the "are you local" at face value.You might want to duck, I think something went straight over your head
The place might have been *twinned* with Royston Vasey in that case -I was given strict instructions not to photograph the web-toes and not to start rattling out anything *like* the intro to battling banjos in case it got the natives excited.
spsun100001
New Member
CECE - a rare good article
A lot more right than wrong in this one if you get past the daft title given that CEC isn't a missile.....
Cutting missile system leaves warships at risk - Telegraph
A lot more right than wrong in this one if you get past the daft title given that CEC isn't a missile.....
Cutting missile system leaves warships at risk - Telegraph
You can hardly blame the Telegraph for calling CEC a "missile system", after all, it's main use could be described as such I reckon
I mean, I know it's more in-depth than that, but for joe-public it seems like an adequate summation to me.
Some interesting news from the RN, firstly some suprisingly loose-lipped stuff about the situation of a couple of Trafalgar class subs
Trenchant ready for demanding tour of duty east of Suez | Royal Navy
The article later mentions that HMS Trenchant will be the 'shark' in an ASW exercise, hopefully they might publish a bit on about how she did, after all, they did with HMS Astute's duel with USS Virginia (I think that was the boat, not 100% so don't quote me on that!)
And HMS Daring is being replaced by HMS Diamond
Diamond debuts as destroyer departs on inaugural deployment | Royal Navy
She's deploying tomorrow (13th) to replace HMS Daring East of Suez and has her Phalanx units installed (some pictures in the article don't show them but they're earlier images)
That leads me onto a question, how long would it take a ship like Daring to become fit for action again after maintenance etc?
As it has been quiet on here for a few days, I thought I would put forward some ideas for debate on how the RN could remodel over the next few decades. I think there are a number of challenge faced, but these I see as key:
- How the RN can be made more relevant to the needs of the British public, and thereby willing to fund it. I appreciate this has been difficult when we have been fighting major land campaigns.
- Meeting the challenge of declining numbers of personnel/hulls
- Maintaining/growing leading edge: anti submarine, air defence, and power projection capabilities.
To achieve these objectives/challenges, I propose:
- That escort vessels are largely removed from the constabulary/patrol role, which would be taken up by c30 version of the Black Swan concept
- The capabilities of the GP Type 26 (what ever they be) are incorporates in the ASW version and refitted into the Type 45.
- Type 26 numbers would be reduced to 9 all of which would have TAS (an increase of 3 on now and 1 on proposed?).
- Black Swans construction would now start before the Type 26 to replace the sale of 4 Type 23s on say a 3 for 1 basis, and would be ongoing at c1 p.a.
- The gap in major unit construction between the completion of POW and the Type 26 (now not needed till 2027) would be taken up by HMS Duke of Edinburgh a third CVF as a replacement for Ocean.
- Expansion and greater use of reservists.
- The adoption of V22 Osprey in the AEW space, and maybe logistics, even SF roles (ideally cancel the Chinook order).
This would enable 3 fleets (one largely reserve) of broadly 2 AWD & 3 ASW escorts + Multi role carrier.
Swapping 4 Type 26 for a CVF will create more jobs, cost less and should be promoted by the RN as supporting growth in depressed areas (as the RMS QM & QE were in the 1930s). Without design and infrastructure costs, a third CVF will be a fraction of what we have paid for the first 2. For the trades/blue collar employment created by construction it should be possible to get additional funding to part fund.
The delay in the Type 26 would enable it to be remodelled into a ship that can better meet the challenges of the future rather than the cut down "recession" design we are heading for.
Shall I duck now!!
- How the RN can be made more relevant to the needs of the British public, and thereby willing to fund it. I appreciate this has been difficult when we have been fighting major land campaigns.
- Meeting the challenge of declining numbers of personnel/hulls
- Maintaining/growing leading edge: anti submarine, air defence, and power projection capabilities.
To achieve these objectives/challenges, I propose:
- That escort vessels are largely removed from the constabulary/patrol role, which would be taken up by c30 version of the Black Swan concept
- The capabilities of the GP Type 26 (what ever they be) are incorporates in the ASW version and refitted into the Type 45.
- Type 26 numbers would be reduced to 9 all of which would have TAS (an increase of 3 on now and 1 on proposed?).
- Black Swans construction would now start before the Type 26 to replace the sale of 4 Type 23s on say a 3 for 1 basis, and would be ongoing at c1 p.a.
- The gap in major unit construction between the completion of POW and the Type 26 (now not needed till 2027) would be taken up by HMS Duke of Edinburgh a third CVF as a replacement for Ocean.
- Expansion and greater use of reservists.
- The adoption of V22 Osprey in the AEW space, and maybe logistics, even SF roles (ideally cancel the Chinook order).
This would enable 3 fleets (one largely reserve) of broadly 2 AWD & 3 ASW escorts + Multi role carrier.
Swapping 4 Type 26 for a CVF will create more jobs, cost less and should be promoted by the RN as supporting growth in depressed areas (as the RMS QM & QE were in the 1930s). Without design and infrastructure costs, a third CVF will be a fraction of what we have paid for the first 2. For the trades/blue collar employment created by construction it should be possible to get additional funding to part fund.
The delay in the Type 26 would enable it to be remodelled into a ship that can better meet the challenges of the future rather than the cut down "recession" design we are heading for.
Shall I duck now!!
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I have noted a lot of people speculating on V22 Osprey operating as an AEW platform of late, I can see the attraction but for bang for your dollar I cannot see how it will ever takeoff. You cannot model it on a E2 Hawkeye as the fuselage has no way of accepting a radome without compromising its ability operate in its intended role from vertical flight to horizontal plus stowage on board a carrier, It might accept the same systems being planned for Merlin. Unless the Americans picture a V22AEW version replacing Hawkeye in the future it I believe will stay in the realms of wishful thinking.
‘Merlin AEW’ Proposed to Replace Royal Navy’s Sea King Mk7 AEW Helicopter - Defense-Update Newscast
File:V-22 Osprey wing rotated.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/PUB_E-2D_Hawkeye_Features_lg.jpg
Yeah - we've already traded way too many escorts for CVF as is.
We badly need more escorts in the water, so trimming Type 26 is a bad idea.
I'm interested in the Black Swan as an MHPC (or whatever way the letters go around) replacement as it could be tolerably flexible but using it as a replacement in any numbers for a Frigate is bonkers.
And definitely no to V22 - it's expensive to buy and to run, if it was free, yes please, otherwise, no ta...
I am not sure I understand you arguement around escorts, the number of ASW escorts would increase by 1 over the current Type 26 planning. What will the GP version bring....crusie missile capability that could be achieved with the Type 45 & ASW Type 26.
On the V22, yes more expensive, but you have to balance with the very significant capability increase over Merlin in the key areas for an AEW platform: range/ceiling. I find this a similar case to CEC debate; we spend millions on expensive kit and then cut on really vital equipment that makes it really perform. We are talking about the eyes of the fleet
£2bn for a 65,000 ships, with no significant design costs (they have been paid for), schedule completely around the requirements of the UK ship building industry with a contribution for the employment created in depressed regions. Compared with 4 Type 26 say 1.5bn - 1.6bn.
This arrangement would give the RN a positive PR image. How much of the CVF costs are related to: design , delay, split construction locations and F35b & c study?
In truth allowing for inflation you could probably get one for less than £1.5bn.
You've suggested cutting Type 26 from 13 to 9, that's 4 less escorts.
Current planning is 8 ASW using 2087 and other kit pulled through from Type 23, and 5 GP, also using kit pulled through from Type 23.
Cutting it to 9 ASW and no GP means buying a further 2087 TAS, and binning four sets of Artisan and other associated kit that had been fitted to Type 23.
So, instead of 8 ASW plus 5 GP Type 26, we'd have 9 Type 26 ASW. That's *less* escorts, at least in terms of major surface combatants.
You have to balance capability this is an increase in ASW capability which is worth paying for, what will the GP ones bring that can not be done by the Black Swans more cost effectively?
A carrier group would be protected by: it's own comprehensive air group, 2 AWD & 3 ASW escorts and probably also a number of Black Swans.
If constructed in the current timescales the Type 26 will be a fairly limited design little better than the Type 23 they replace.
AFAIK the only real difference between the GP and ASW T26 is that the GP just doesn't have the specific ASW kit, but everything else is the same but they still have the capacity to handle the ASW gear if the situation demanded it
Or is that horribly wrong? That's my understanding of it anyway.
kev 99
Member
I thought the 4 Type 26s you want to cut is paying for your increase in the survey/MCM/OPV fleet that comes from your 30 Black Swans?
I don't see any mention of the spend on unmaned systems that would be necessary for these 30 Black Swans to work either?
I find it extremely debatable that you would get a third CVF for £1.5b.
Buying a third CVF as a dedicated Ocean replacement isn't a particularly good idea, it would make more sense to buy something like an Enforcer LHD, in fact you could probably get 2 for less money.
I don't think we need more of the Black Swans than proposed (actually less than that document). But you would need some to entre service before the 4 Type 23s leave, so I was not counting the cost here. Also there is no rush for a 3rd CVF to be commissioned certainly the gap between Ocean going could be covered. One of the benefits of a high profile asset is the PR value, and the ability to get additional funding for the RN for the employment it offers (this does work it must have been a big consideration for the Labour party in the initial orders). The Enforcer would be a new design/construction, although not likely to be an expensive construction neither is the CVF both are large bulks of steel. BAE have outsourced some of their current workload to A&P (although this is being reduced). All the cost of the CVF is the delays and design, and set up, its all done.