The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

We must have a suitable home brew design, surely ?

BAE do have a few mock ups for an LHD which I don't think is what they're doing for the Canberras so it does seem like something new.

http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis.com/preview.aspx?itemid=4038
http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis.com/preview.aspx?itemid=4020

To me it looks essentially like a modernised version of Ocean with not much difference in terms of actual design so I assume most of the changes just make it a more efficient ship which - considering how cheap the CVF is for what it is - could be a real asset, which is really all we need.

If the MOD is actually interested in it or not is another thing. Personally I won't really expect much until after the 2015SDSR as (IIRC) the decommissioning date is 2022 for Ocean.

 

[deepsixteen]

I thought that the decision had already been made and the money effectively spent however ?

I'd sooner have an 8th Astute of course.

Hi

Not in any real sense the given cost is the cost to artificially drag out the build process and the difference was around 200 million less than unit cost; clearly once taken any decision to build the eighth will cost you more, a poor decision not to build by bean counters and the politicians IMHO.

Deepsixteen

 

[deepsixteen]

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.

Hi

What requirement for inshore training could not be met by for instance a sloop with a couple of these
Royal Marines Take Armoured Raiding Craft for a Spin | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
and one of these
[ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceimages/5881658066/"]AgustaWestland AW159 Lynx Wildcat | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame]

Oh and I’d rather have a decent fleet and a proper review!

Deepsixteen

 

[swerve]

BAE do have a few mock ups for an LHD which I don't think is what they're doing for the Canberras so it does seem like something new.

http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis.com/preview.aspx?itemid=4038
http://imagegallery.baesystems.investis.com/preview.aspx?itemid=4020

To me it looks essentially like a modernised version of Ocean with not much difference in terms of actual design so I assume most of the changes just make it a more efficient ship which - considering how cheap the CVF is for what it is - could be a real asset, which is really all we need....

.. 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),...

I presume that apart from the dock, the differences will be general modernisation, & remediation of weaknesses identified during Ocean's service life.

 

[Repulse]

Deepsixteen: Completely understand the utility of the ARC and Wildcat and I have no qualms with them being in the RN itinerary. The problem I see is that the ARC would struggle to operate in rough seas and is too lightly armed to make an impact beyond shooting at other lightly armed (small arms) vessels. They wouldn't be able to offer much against UAVs, plus they would be reliant on a slow mothership MHPC.

Also whilst I am looking forward to the RN getting the wildcat, their numbers are too few to be able to be permanently based on MHPCs. If the weather is bad, or the helicopter is in bits in the hanger it also causes a problem.

The Archer class can operate independently at range; interestingly the hull has been designed for speeds up to 45kts but the engines are not spec'd accordingly. It has been designed to carry a 20mm if required, but this is a manual gun, rather than say a stabilized 25mm Bushmaster type on the RAN Armidale class. Having a slightly larger version of the Archer class with Bushmaster (or equivalent) and fully spec'd engines would be a great tool to the RN and would compliment what you suggest. However, numbers are key as they would ideally be located around the UK and other important points of the Globe such as Gibraltar.

Costs are also important of course, my understanding of costs are:

- Wildcat: £27mn
- MHPC: @£65-£100mn
- ARCs: ? Couldn't find any info but I am assuming cheap.
- Armidale "type": £15mn (AUS $28mn)

So for the cost of a single MHPC / ARC / Wildcat package (£92mn - I'm being generous), you could get 6 Armidale type craft, which can be in 6 places not one.

 

[StevoJH]

Depends, is the speed for those patrol boats limited by engine power? Or the gearing on the propellors?

Its possible that they are geared to increase fuel economy and that a simple gearing switch could radically increase their speed.

 

[StobieWan]

Depends, is the speed for those patrol boats limited by engine power? Or the gearing on the propellors?

Its possible that they are geared to increase fuel economy and that a simple gearing switch could radically increase their speed.

Engine power - they were fitted with the current spec for whatever reason but the hull was designed around a 45 knot capability.

So I suspect the engine, prop etc would have to be swapped out to get them to go any quicker.

 

[StevoJH]

Engine power - they were fitted with the current spec for whatever reason but the hull was designed around a 45 knot capability.

So I suspect the engine, prop etc would have to be swapped out to get them to go any quicker.

So you are saying that these boats which as far as I can tell have about 1500 HP of engines in them can only do 14 knots and it isnt gearing limited?

A 900t Flower class Corvette on ~2000HP could do 16.

No idea if the Archer class could do 45 knots on its current engines, but i'm pretty sure they could do more then 14 knots.

 

[Repulse]

Archer class I believe can do 18kts.

 

[StobieWan]

So you are saying that these boats which as far as I can tell have about 1500 HP of engines in them can only do 14 knots and it isnt gearing limited?

A 900t Flower class Corvette on ~2000HP could do 16.

No idea if the Archer class could do 45 knots on its current engines, but i'm pretty sure they could do more then 14 knots.

Well, the RN fact sheet says 24kts

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1394C872-1F93-4487-B0EF-B9D9604E4314/0/RN1stPatrolSqn.pdf


The Wiki entry says 22 for Tracker and Tracer and 14 for the rest.

I dunno, RN source vs Wiki...hmmm...


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_class_patrol_vessel"]Archer class patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


"14 knots (Tracker & Raider; 22 knots)(Hull designed to reach 45 knots (83 km/h), but limited due to the type of engine fitted)"

The RN factsheet makes no distinction.

I was more referring to why they wouldn't do forty odd knots, rather than any differences between members in the same class so we may be at cross purposes?


Given there's no difference in the engines between any members of the class stated then any speed differences would have to be gearing as you say.

 

[StevoJH]

Archer class I believe can do 18kts.

RN website states varying speeds depending on what ship you look at. Some say 13 knots, some 14 knots, other 22 and 25 knots.

So, I think the speeds for those ships should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[StobieWan]

RN website states varying speeds depending on what ship you look at. Some say 13 knots, some 14 knots, other 22 and 25 knots.

So, I think the speeds for those ships should be taken with a grain of salt.

Looks like the answer is dependent on whatever particular Archer you're on...

 

[Repulse]

Looks like the answer is dependent on whatever particular Archer you're on...

You are probably right - plus the RN are notorious for understating speeds, e.g. the common 29+ kts quoted for the T45.

 

[watchyourbaK]

Having been on an Archer class I feel I might be able to contribute. They are currently limited to 12 knots apart from the two batch 2's fitted with different engines which can do 24 knots. The engines are old RR V12 Turbo Diesels (CV-12s) which due to the way they are fitted are limited in engine revolutions, this is due to the speed at which the brackets crack as the engines are not designed for these vessels so were kind of "bodged" in.

Also very few of them actually have the mounting bracket for the cannon on the Fo'castle I cannot remember which do but it is not alot of them. They are also due for decommission from the end of 2012, this most likely will not happen and they will probably be run until they die but studies into re-engining and refurbishing them have taken place. I believe there has been a study into replacing them but the money has vanished!

 

[StobieWan]

well,there y'go folks Cheers for that, clears up a few things!


I think it's just the two from Gibraltar, Ranger and Trumpeter that have the 20mm mount fitted. I guess with their being GRP hulls, they'll stay in service til the seas run dry if the current climate of economic depression continues.

 

[deepsixteen]

well,there y'go folks Cheers for that, clears up a few things!


I think it's just the two from Gibraltar, Ranger and Trumpeter that have the 20mm mount fitted. I guess with their being GRP hulls, they'll stay in service til the seas run dry if the current climate of economic depression continues.

Hi

Or the politicians can wise up and spend a trivial amount of money on a small economic boost that might actually help the economy rather than give it all to the bankers again.

@ Repulse. Seems I was right about the Archers being (Makes a 18knot+ MHCP look fast) not much good, really ripe for replacement but not by anything as small as Armidale, I thought the RAN was looking for something more like 2000 ton as a replacement?

I do think a sloop at around 100million a unit over ten years is a pittance to pay for something handy for a neutral personnel cost with a demonstrable economic benefit for the build community selected.

Deepsixteen

 

[ASSAIL]

Hi

but not by anything as small as Armidale, I thought the RAN was looking for something more like 2000 ton as a replacement?

The Armidales would seem about right for the UK coastal environment or specific areas like Gibralter or Crete.

In Australia, they operate over vast areas of the North and NW coasts. To give you a relative perspective, a normal North West Australian patrol would consist of: departure from Plymouth, transit to Gib and top up fuel' then conduct a three week patrol across the entire Western Med as far as say Crete and then return to Plymouth.

The RAN wants to upgrade to an aviation capable/task flexible platform but still retain the numbers available for Border Protection Command (7 units available for tasking with an extra 2 available for peaks).
The SEA 1180 proposal calls for 20 units to replace the current 26 Mine Warfare, Hydrographic patrol vessels.[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Australian_offshore_combattant_vessel"]Planned Australian offshore combattant vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Having served in the RN on exchange and experienced conditions around the UK coast I think that the Armidale style/size patrol boats would be perfectly suitable unless there is a requirement for the RN to follow the trend of LCS/OCV type vessels at the exclusion of coastal patrol forces.

Cheers all.

 

[deepsixteen]

The Armidales would seem about right for the UK coastal environment or specific areas like Gibralter or Crete.

In Australia, they operate over vast areas of the North and NW coasts. To give you a relative perspective, a normal North West Australian patrol would consist of: departure from Plymouth, transit to Gib and top up fuel' then conduct a three week patrol across the entire Western Med as far as say Crete and then return to Plymouth.

The RAN wants to upgrade to an aviation capable/task flexible platform but still retain the numbers available for Border Protection Command (7 units available for tasking with an extra 2 available for peaks).
The SEA 1180 proposal calls for 20 units to replace the current 26 Mine Warfare, Hydrographic patrol vessels.Planned Australian offshore combattant vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having served in the RN on exchange and experienced conditions around the UK coast I think that the Armidale style/size patrol boats would be perfectly suitable unless there is a requirement for the RN to follow the trend of LCS/OCV type vessels at the exclusion of coastal patrol forces.

Cheers all.

Hi

Archer class are not really used like the Armidale class as the UK does not have that kind of requirement and the RN has the desire to create a more useful and globally deployable MHCP force.

Deepsixteen

 

[Repulse]

ASSAIL: Thanks for the insight.

I do think that the RAN / RN situations differ, and even then both navies will end up with similar vessels.. The in case of the RN, to replace OPVs and MCMs - as stated earlier I would also boast numbers by 4, to say 18, in return for sacrificing a T26.

In money terns, assuming that all 18 inshore patrol boats were replaced, at best you could hope for 3 MHPCs. 2 of these would be taken up for Gibraltar and Clyde duties.

I see a definate role for small ships in the RN, not atleast for giving young officers the chance of command. We just need to get the design right to maximise the utility.

 

[Repulse]

Hi

Archer class are not really used like the Armidale class as the UK does not have that kind of requirement and the RN has the desire to create a more useful and globally deployable MHCP force.

Deepsixteen

Passing posts... I disagree, smaller inshore protection boats (appropriately designed / armed) do have a role:

- Port / harbour protection (including SSBN escorting)
- EEZ protection (Gibraltar)
- Anti-smuggling / terrorism (UK, Gibraltar and Cyprus)
- Training

Why use a £90mn (again I'm being generous) asset when a £10-15mn will do.