kev 99
Member
Well it I might be having a memory failure but I thought the fuigures released in the SDSR were a great deal higher than that?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I think there is something to be said for building some type of FAC/corvette particularly for the Gulf, I would like something smaller that could fit into a LPD which could act as a tender. If the RN could broader the role of the LPDs we they might get Albion out of jail.
Most of the focus of USV has been on patrol, ASW appears to be a little out of fashion, but 4-6 almost self propelled sonar, able to drift, maybe 100s miles away form a the contolling Type 26, could be a real break through in ASW.
If these where based on something like the M80 Stiletto, they would require better boat handling facilities/maybe full docks than currently proposed on the current Type 26. This is another reason a delay might help thinking on what ship we need, in a financially better enviroment.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M80_Stiletto"]M80 Stiletto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
I would think difficult for a sub to detect and kill, and with a payload and endurance advantages over a helicopters able to carry full sized torpedos and stay on station for days not hours?
HI
I would think that any reduction in the number of type 26 would be a mistake. I do see some merit in the Sloop idea but for me I would like to see a small amount of additional funding to act as a financial stimulus.
I would think that for around a billion (not a lot in the scheme of things over say ten years) to produce eight sloop’s to replace 16 Archer class making manning cost neutral core crew twelve.
Decent radar, as flexible a CMS architecture as possible and 57mm gun, perhaps a little longer for the performance benefits it brings and make max speed 24 cruise 18. Accommodation will have to be better than Astute but perhaps not as lavish as type 45.
But rather than URNU getting exclusive rights I would attach them to RNR training units as pairs and pad out the ships companies with reservists for deployments.
This would give scope to prove systems and operational methods prior to the MHCP program proper and add something mildly useful and deployable as well as bringing economic benefit to the build community
Deepsixteen
I would think that any reduction in the number of type 26 would be a mistake. I do see some merit in the Sloop idea but for me I would like to see a small amount of additional funding to act as a financial stimulus.
I would think that for around a billion (not a lot in the scheme of things over say ten years) to produce eight sloop’s to replace 16 Archer class making manning cost neutral core crew twelve.
Decent radar, as flexible a CMS architecture as possible and 57mm gun, perhaps a little longer for the performance benefits it brings and make max speed 24 cruise 18. Accommodation will have to be better than Astute but perhaps not as lavish as type 45.
But rather than URNU getting exclusive rights I would attach them to RNR training units as pairs and pad out the ships companies with reservists for deployments.
This would give scope to prove systems and operational methods prior to the MHCP program proper and add something mildly useful and deployable as well as bringing economic benefit to the build community
Deepsixteen
1805: I see a "corvette" using a LPD as a mothership an interesting idea, but see the requirement more as a replacement for the Archer / Sabre classes. It needs to be something that can operate inshore and therefore relatively small: e.g. a larger CB90 type craft. The reason why I opt for something akin to a Visby class is that it could comfortably operate also a thousand miles from base alone in a medium threat environment. The concern is that by replacing the T26s with just Sloops means we are limited in vessels that can enter a warm environment. A ship of this type would be fine in the Med or Gulf and even possibly the Indian Ocean / South China sea.
Deepsixteen: I definately see the role for the RNR in manning the MHPCs. However, assuming the government builds 14 of them to replace the MCMs / Echos / Rivers, then plus the additional 4 Blackswan slippe I propose this would make 18 vessels; more than enough in my view.
The Archers / Sabres, should probably be replaced by slightly larger / faster vessels with a 20mm cannon built-in. These could also be manned by a mix of RN / RNR personnel and take a more active role (e.g costal / harbour patrols). The URNU should be merged into the RNR.
Deepsixteen: I definately see the role for the RNR in manning the MHPCs. However, assuming the government builds 14 of them to replace the MCMs / Echos / Rivers, then plus the additional 4 Blackswan slippe I propose this would make 18 vessels; more than enough in my view.
The Archers / Sabres, should probably be replaced by slightly larger / faster vessels with a 20mm cannon built-in. These could also be manned by a mix of RN / RNR personnel and take a more active role (e.g costal / harbour patrols). The URNU should be merged into the RNR.
Last edited:
Hi
My memory may not be completely correct but I would prefer its accuracy to the political rubbish that is SDSR. 200 Million is the figure friends, some still serving put on it and seems to be about the mark from most things I have read.
Deepsixteen
Well, no, last briefing on the T26 was that strike length cells (probably A70 Sylvers) are *in* for the RN version - A70 can take all sorts of stuff, including SCALP-N and would have the length for TLAM, although it's unclear if TLAM has ever been packaged for Sylver.
There are other things that can go in those cells and it's certainly untrue to suggest that the only thing a GP type 26 could do is carry TLAM.
Type 45 has room for an additional bank of silos, which is where strike length missiles would have to go - there' s not enough room under the existing Aster silos to extend into the hull..
I suspect in the coming years the distinction between land attack and anti ship missiles will become increasingly blurred and things like Perseus will become the norm, with multiple programmable effects warheads.
A VLS packaged Fireshadow would fit into an A50 I believe, certainly quite easily into an A70, if the wing folds etc will permit for diameter - and Fireshadow as a loitering attack munition with expendable UAV capability would be very good for littoral scraps with coastal artillery and FACS.
I thought that the decision had already been made and the money effectively spent however ?
I'd sooner have an 8th Astute of course.
Black Swan is a discussion document for a replacement for the MCM, patrol craft and survey vessels - it says so quite definitely in the preface.
Basically, there's a debate between forward basing, supported deployment and self deployment - and the MHPC appears to land firmly on a self deploying asset acting as a mother ship for a number of smaller platforms, both aerial and marine.
Assuming something like Black Swan ended up being used, there's no way the RN can run a stack of Archer style replacements plus Stiletto etc.
I agree, hence why I suggest replacing just one GP T26 with 4 patrol Blackswans. I do not see the need for two classes to replace the Archer class - also not convinced on the need for this replacement to be like Stiletto, something more akin to the RAN Adelaide class for me (if the money was there).
But you are - you're talking about replacing the Archers with something with a 20mm cannon (which the Archers can already carry) then buying Visby's (which lack the range or endurance for anything the RN needs), plus Black Swan. That's three new ships instead of one.
Black Swan is a discussion document about replacing the patrol craft (Archer etc), the minehunters and the survey ships with one common platform. You seem to be adding types as fast as possible...
The Black Swan discussion document is a bit more that you discribe, it is almost in the Absalon/Stanflex/LCS space, it's talking about the merits of plaforms & highly flexible self containe/packaged systems. Almost how an aircraft carrier can change role by changin it's aircraft mix.
Just for clarity I was not suggest a Stilleto in the patrol or SF space, or even in it's current manned form. More an USV in the ASW, working with and complementing Merlins (not replacing) but controlled by a much larger Type 26. Carry full sized 21" torpedos (maybe smaller warheads to give greater range/speed over sub based rounds).
Again I am not suggesting replacing Merlins with Stilletos, but it is interesting to compare the features of the platforms and how this may support capability is the ASW space.
MHPC replacing the Archer class is news to me... Like to see one of them get down the Thames during the next Jubilee celebrations... There is still a requirement for a sub 200 ton inshore patrol / training ship.
Whilst the Visby would be a new class the fact is that you cannot have an all singing and dancing MHPC without turning it into a T26 (or more). Therefore, you split patrol / utility functions from warm environment fighting into 2 seperate designs. I would argue that a Visby is exactly what the RN is lacking for Litterol environments and the range of 2,500nm is sufficient for operating in the Gulf / Med and can be supported by the RFA when required.
I do like the Visby, but my preference would be something like the Skjold class, smaller (150t) and able to get a few in the dock of a LPD. Since the HMS Cornwall think we need to look again at more assetive patrol assets.
Design is still not the bulk of the cost of a CVF. It isn't like building two or three jet fighters, where design & development would be over 90% of the cost. Even for a single ship of that size & complexity, construction is the majority of the cost: it's a complicated & expensive ship. An additional vessel, following on from the two building, wouldn't cost much less than the original (pre building delays) price of each one.
What do the Bays & Points have to do with an Enforcer LHD as an Ocean replacement? The Points are miltarised freighters, & the Bays are for logistics, carrying reinforcements & supplies to follow up an amphibious landing. What we're talking about is something for amphibious assault, with a through deck so that it can launch a lot of helicopters. Enforcer is a family of designs with common elements, not just the Bay class - and the family includes LHDs.
Nor is an Enforcer LHD the only option. There are completely OTS options, e.g. Juan Carlos I & its modified version the Canberra class, the Mistral & Dokdo classes, the new Japanese 22DDH 'destroyer', now that they're allowing exports, & by the time your hypothetical 3rd CVF would be building, probably an Italian LHD. There are also outline designs which would need detailed design work: the already mentioned Enforcer LHD, designs from TKMS & BAe (the latter based on the Ocean hull), & the not-yet-detailed Fincantieri design that the Italians want to build. Any of those could replace Ocean for a fraction of the price of a CVF, & some could also lily-pad F-35B.
A couple of LHD's on order would be nice - Ocean's up for decom - don't think it'll happen but I'd sooner have a domestically designed LHD with options for an export model - might drum up some orders overseas.
Certainly be more use than another CVF, as well as about a third the price for the pair, unless you were building them to San Antonio standards,
Ian
Certainly be more use than another CVF, as well as about a third the price for the pair, unless you were building them to San Antonio standards,
Ian
I have to say, i'm rather partial to the Canberra class LHD for the RAN. It seems like a very good competitor for a replacement in my opinion and seems to do exactly what Ocean does except probably better, can do more of it and more efficiently, but do you happen to know the rough unit cost for the ship?
Then, could it be domestically produced?
Here's a good document about it from BAE but i'm not sure what changes have been made (if any have been that is).
http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdq0/~edisp/baes_034255.pdf
EDIT: I'm not knocking the Juan Carlos
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
Bit of a congested market.
2 LHD's plus change makes a great deal more sense than a third CVF, both economically and operationally.
Yup - wouldn't bin four type 26's to do it however - which is where this discussion kicked off as assuming would be required.
It'd be nice to see something in the pipeline for Ocean's replacement but here's hopin,
Ian
Since the Canberra is a Juan Carlos I modified for Australian requirements, just as I'm sure we'd modify the basic design for RN requirements, why start with the derivative, rather than the original?
The Canberra class is a lot more expensive than the Juan Carlos, partly because of the changes, but also because it's being built in a very expensive way. The ships are part-built in Spain, then transported to Australia on a semi-submersible heavy lift ship (quite a few million per ship for that) & completed there. Australian shipyards aren't cheap, & doing the fit-out separately adds more costs. The contract for the two ships is something like AUD3 billion, or £2 billion. We could probably save up to a billion on that price by having nothing to do with the Australians & their changes.