The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
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.
I think the closest we came to replacing them was when the Irish looked at a newer variant; faster and I believe armed with a 25mm deck gun (or at least facilities for them), they established that they could buy ten for the price of a standard OPV (US$50+ million) which put the price at around ($6 million for these units plus the gun), and were seriously considering it before opting to buy the two large 90m OPVs similar to their existing design and the Kiwi’s Protector class.
I do not know exactly how far the design went beyond the basic premise I outlined above but this does show that at some stage production was considered and I believe that had the Irish ordered them the realistic possibility is that Britain would have followed for ease and to justify supporting smaller shipyards. Personally I think it would be a good option to build some; we have seen the Scottish shipyards demonstrate their ability to build commercial designs, the UKBA operate the Damen Stans now and the BAE yards are building OPVs regularly now, so the capacity is there and I think it should be maximised on if the funds can be obtained.
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).
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.
I do not know exactly how far the design went beyond the basic premise I outlined above but this does show that at some stage production was considered and I believe that had the Irish ordered them the realistic possibility is that Britain would have followed for ease and to justify supporting smaller shipyards. Personally I think it would be a good option to build some; we have seen the Scottish shipyards demonstrate their ability to build commercial designs, the UKBA operate the Damen Stans now and the BAE yards are building OPVs regularly now, so the capacity is there and I think it should be maximised on if the funds can be obtained.
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).
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.
watchyourbaK
New Member
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.
However in their current role the restriction to do 12 Knots is not an operational limit due to the nature of their role as URNU training vessels. There are implications for going faster in terms of crew fatigue and needing proper seating. In their current role they do a very good job and do deploy across the UK and Europe representing the RN well and travelling as far as the Eastern Baltic.
Last edited:
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.
I doubt BAE will find any takers unfortunately -- my money on the Brazilian order would be FREMM bundled with other French kit.
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.
...As for 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
Last edited:
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.
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)
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
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
The reason i thought that they'd made some sort of real movement on the issue was how you used the phrase "opted in" which to me made it sound like they had made some progress on the issue.
I still reckon FREMM will win because as optimistic that article is, when it starts saying how BAE are gunning for a deal by the end of the year and it was published in 2010 makes me skeptical
not to mention that the OPV was a decent oppertunity that came along rather than actually looking at BAE solutions.Although saying that, the fact they've not snapped up FREMM does make me wonder if they're waiting for a final spec of T26 before making a decision.
Last edited:
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 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.
I should point out I did write "more" OPVs rather than just OPVs to acknowledge there was already deals in progress on the matter.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.