I think you are right... Shame though as it would be a cheap / quick win in the big scheme of things. Could have gone along way with the money spent on the cats&flaps debacle.We definitely need something for inshore work, but I doubt we'll see the Archers replaced soon - bit of a pain as bluntly they're just not fast enough to catch anyone.
Having been involved with 1PBS I have heard nothing of an actual modernisation, though I have also heard nothing about them being decommissioned for over a year either. Up to PR11 there was a £40Mish allocation for their replacement under the Future Riverine Patrol Vessel programme but AFAIK this money has vanished. The ships have been surveyed for replacement engines, generators and electronics but there has not been much news since then.Finally on the Archers I’m fairly sure that Appledore has been going through and modernising them all so the 2012 timeframe is definitely off schedule at the moment.
.
There has gradual increase in size and improvement in speed in the Australian patrol forces post 1967 when the first of the Attack class [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_class_patrol_boat"]Attack class patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]Whilst the larger Armidales could be a great benefit and would be an improvement I think that a ship to the existing size would be a more viable option, if faster and with all ships having possible armament, not only financially but also in terms of things such as manpower (These would be an easy option for using more Reserves as the plan is in the future military) and reliability (simple design with little to go wrong unlike the whole gas issue with the Armidales and so forth).
was introduced.
These ships were too small and uncomfortable in a seaway to be effective because, if operations went beyond 48 hrs, the crew were so fatigued that performance failed. I had Command of one!
The next generation were the Fremantle Class with increased size and speed but maintaining a crew of around 18. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_class_patrol_boat"]Fremantle class patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]Although these were a vast improvement it was felt that efficiency would again be improved by increasing size yet again.
At the same time, the Australian Customs service, a participant in Border Protection Command, decided to build their own offshore patrol class after many years of small inshore designs similar to the Archer class.
The first result was the Bay Class [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_class_patrol_boat"]Bay class patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] [Customs failed to consult the RAN adequately and the result was a ship that mirrored just about every limitation experienced in the previous two RAN designs.
However, lesson learned and the replacement Cape Class are very similar to the Armidales (can't get the link to work for the Austal Cape Class- try google direct, apologies)
The point of this convoluted tale is that;
1. If a crew is to function at a sustained level, size matters and in littoral seas this appears to be about 55+ mtrs.
2. Speeds below 22kts limit operational usefulness.
3.Planners will always demand more of a hull than is originally planned, particularly patrol forces which can be used for just about any situation the govt of the day can conjure up.
The Archers are "Riverine" boats and to deploy them beyond site of land without escort seems unwise, particularly in the frontal weather systems experienced in the UK. They seem to me to be purely training boats and more should not be asked from them.
If the RN needed purely patrol forces then a ship around 55mtrs would be an effective and cheap and useful alternative to the larger OPV/LCS?OCV style vessels
Cheers
Bit of a blow, but the reasons are valid, after all its the same reasons why we wanted export orders in the first place. Now its up to the Brazilians.Ankara has declined to become a partner in the British Global Combat Ship (GCS) programme. Thirteen of the frigates are set to enter service with the Royal Navy after 2020 to replace the Type 23 as the backbone of the fleet. However, efforts to interest foreign nations in the GCS have so far not yet yielded results. Canada has also rejected the GCS, which is known to be the Type 26 in UK service. It had been hoped the Turkish Navy would be interested as part of its TF2000 air-defence frigate programme. It seems the Turkish Navy is determined to carry on with its plan to build upon experience gained from the MILGEM corvette project and nurture domestic design and construction experience. Brazil may yet be interested in joining the GCS program
I doubt BAE will find any takers unfortunately -- my money on the Brazilian order would be FREMM bundled with other French kit.Disappointing - but not surprising - article in Warships IFR, turns out the Turks have made the decision to not partner in the T26 project
Bit of a blow, but the reasons are valid, after all its the same reasons why we wanted export orders in the first place. Now its up to the Brazilians.
Disappointing - but not surprising - article in Warships IFR, turns out the Turks have made the decision to not partner in the T26 project.
Bit of a blow, but the reasons are valid, after all its the same reasons why we wanted export orders in the first place. Now its up to the Brazilians.
But what the Turks plan to do isn't keep ships that they have, but design & build a new class of ships on their own, instead of splitting the cost with us. That isn't a financial decision, it's a strategic industrial decision, & hang the cost.It probably the same reason that most people aren't buying multi-million pound, complex warships just now....
MONEY !
In this financial climate, it is easier, to certain extents, to keep ships that you have & can maintain, than attempting to find funds / balance budgets & prepare for the unexpected, by buying new, unproven designs, that have not yet been fully designed or costed.
SA
I'd like to see a source for that please, AFAIK Brazil are on the fence still about the whole T26/FREMM and thus far haven't been committed to either. If they have committed (or at least made promising noises to the same effect) then that's fabulous but I still reckon they won't go for it....As or the Brazilians, AFAIK they are the only nation thus far who have opted to get involved, as their GDP is larger than the UK's, is still expanding due to oil revenue & they look intent in replacing ALL of their 40+ year old ships, from OPV's to support & amphibious vessels.
I personally think it's a very shrewd move to be tied in with BAE, due to their commitments to the maritime industry across the globe.
SA
Let me correct your understanding of my comments.I'd like to see a source for that please, AFAIK Brazil are on the fence still about the whole T26/FREMM and thus far haven't been committed to either. If they have committed (or at least made promising noises to the same effect) then that's fabulous but I still reckon they won't go for it.
If they do go for it however, then that's all it'll be; frigates, maybe a couple more OPVs at a stretch. They've got better relations with other nations in the more specialist fields (Maritime aviation/submarines)
Excellent, I'll have a read through those later.Let me correct your understanding of my comments.
I must apologise if I implied that there is a signature / contract between BAE & Brazil, in relation to GCS. There isn't & it wasn't my intention to imply that there was.
From the 2 articles below, it could be easy to draw conclusions, mainly because IMHO, if a nation such as Brazil are making moves such as these, then there may be more to follow. Additionally Brazil IS the only foreign nation that I'm aware of, who has made any positive noises about GCS, so it's sort of logical to follow that train of thought
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_026920/technology-transfer-key-to-bae-systems-proposal-to-the-brazilian-navy
http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_027848/brazil-buys-ocean-patrol-vessels
As for the FREMM thing, I found the link below & while FREMM is mentioned, I see more of BAE & ITS proposal in it.
More fuel for the fire ??
Britain Joins France, Italy In Race for Brazilian Order | Defense News | defensenews.com
SA
Since they were inviting tenders for about six OPVs, have just bought three, & signed a contract allowing them to build more of the same type under licence, I'd say the chances are better than "maybe ... at a stretch" that they'll build two or three more.I'd like to see a source for that please, AFAIK Brazil are on the fence still about the whole T26/FREMM and thus far haven't been committed to either. If they have committed (or at least made promising noises to the same effect) then that's fabulous but I still reckon they won't go for it.
If they do go for it however, then that's all it'll be; frigates, maybe a couple more OPVs at a stretch. They've got better relations with other nations in the more specialist fields (Maritime aviation/submarines)
I concluded them so be pretty much already done deals, or at least progressing so well that it pretty much is so( 3 built and for some reason I thought it was 5 license builds) already constructed + license builds all together so when I say "maybe more" I mean more than the total deals being thrown around right now independent of any T26 discussion.Since they were inviting tenders for about six OPVs, have just bought three, & signed a contract allowing them to build more of the same type under licence, I'd say the chances are better than "maybe ... at a stretch" that they'll build two or three more.
Apples and Oranges.In my opinion, the Royal Navy should have gone with an LHA type carrier. They would have the same capability with the added Amphibious assault capability for their Royal Marines. Maybe the Royal Navy can look at buying into the US Navy's America or Wasp class amphibious assault ship. It would save them money by just buying the ship and paying for any equipment that they want installed.
We hope that MOD is looking for a replacement for HMS Ocean. I think the Libyan operation gave MOD a serious wake-up call as to why decommissioning an aircraft carrier is a bad idea. They could have kept the carriers or looked into America for LHA's or buy into France's Mistrial. They really need to have one for the Falklands and one for other commitments.Apples and Oranges.
The primary focus of the QE class was to be used as strike carriers with a secondary LPH capability, nothing amphibious. In my opinion this was the best way to - for the UK - to operate their carriers along with the principle of a TAG (Tailored Air Group) in which the aircraft embarked are not fixed but are flexed dependant on the requirements of any particular deployment so any mixture of F35B/Merlin/Lynx/Apache or whatever is the most appropriate will be chosen.
Not to mention that, operationally at least, the QE carriers would offer the UK a better capability than any LHA in it's role as a strike carrier. I'd rather leave the amphibious antics to the ships we already have than having another ship adapted to a task it shouldn't really have to do and it's other primary role is handicapped because of this.
Therefore I really hope the MOD are looking at an Ocean replacement than thinking "Well, the QEs will take care of that" and instead bring in a dedicated replacement.
If the RAN wanted to, they could have taken what is left of the Tarawa class amphibious assault ship such as the USS Tarawa (LHA-1), USS Nassau (LHA-4) or even the USS Peleliu (LHA-5). As a loan until their carriers come online. Even the Royal Australian Navy could have done the same thing by borrowing USS Tarawa (LHA-1), USS Nassau (LHA-4) or even the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) until their LHA comes online. It would have kept institutional knowledge of LHA operations fresh on their minds and for the Australians a learning tool on LHA operations.1. When the Queen Elizabeth class carriers were ordered, the RN had one LPH, two LPDs, & four LSTs, It didn't need any more amphibious assault ships. Indeed, it's now sold one of its LSTs because it was deemed surplus to requirements. Why invest in more of what we already have a surplus of?
2. At the time the QE carriers were ordered, the America-class was more expensive, not cheaper. It's also smaller, with much less aviation capacity (about half the flight deck!), & slower. Because of politically induced delays, the QEs are now more expensive, but once we allow for the money already spent, it's a lot cheaper & much quicker to complete them than to scrap them & buy a pair of America-class ships. Why are you advocating a course of action which would cost us more, mean we're without carriers for longer, send all the money outside the country instead of most of it being spent here, & get us inferior ships?