The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

But why do we need them? If it's hulls a OPV/Black Swan type can do in greater numbers.

Unless we get into a shooting war, at which point a large collection of lightly crewed, lightly armed OPV's will be either useless or floating decoys.

Right now we have 13 Type 23's, 8 of which have towed arrays and 5 of which do not - all are capable and well rounded ships that do useful work at all ends of the spectrum. They can fight in a hot war, do low end work.

OPV's can't migate to hot wars as easily...

 

[kev 99]

A CVF cost will be spread over c50 years a Type 26 over c30. Thats probably in the region of half the CAPEX cost of 4 Type 26 over 30 years if they are only £350m.

Except that the RN want and can find a use for those 5 GP Type 26, they don't want, have no use for and can't even afford aircraft for a third CVF.

Building a third CVF would be a pointless extravagence.

 

[1805]

Ah, no, last single unit price for T45 was about 750 million so it's either 2 T45's with AWD, no ASW or ASuW beyond the embarked helicopter, or five capable frigates with a wide spectrum of roles. I'd take the frigates every day of the week and so would the RN.

A single Astute would be about a billion (don't start down the "difference between delaying it and building another one." comparison - that money's already been squandered.)

Neither do we save any money in terms of design costs by building either of those since we still have to buy Type 26 with TAS - and that effectively means that the 5 GP variants will be "proven" or OTS or whatever you like to call it.


I don't agree that 14 surface combatants is "enough" when we're struggling to cover everything with 19 right now.

We are struggling with hulls for constabulary work and an OPV will provide far more and the greater numbers will probably provide a more capable at GP capability.

What ASW capability will a Type 26 have without TAS, anymore than a Type 45, it will likely also be equipped with a Wildcat. What self defence will it have Phalanx/CAMM both of which could probably be bolted on an OPV if needed. The problem with your argument is you have a muddled view of the core purpose of an escort.

 

[1805]

Unless we get into a shooting war, at which point a large collection of lightly crewed, lightly armed OPV's will be either useless or floating decoys.

Right now we have 13 Type 23's, 8 of which have towed arrays and 5 of which do not - all are capable and well rounded ships that do useful work at all ends of the spectrum. They can fight in a hot war, do low end work.

OPV's can't migate to hot wars as easily...

Apart for being able to defend itself, what additional value would a GP Type 26 provide over a reasonably armed OPV, with twice the numbers. In a hot war the frigates need to focus on protecting the major assets from submarines and leave the offensive operations to CVFs.

 

[StobieWan]

We are struggling with hulls for constabulary work and an OPV will provide far more and the greater numbers will probably provide a more capable at GP capability.

What ASW capability will a Type 26 have without TAS, anymore than a Type 45, it will likely also be equipped with a Wildcat. What self defence will it have Phalanx/CAMM both of which could probably be bolted on an OPV if needed. The problem with your argument is you have a muddled view of the core purpose of an escort.

Type 26 will have a quiet hull and props plus probably a decent bow sonar as opposed to the very basic mine detection kit on the Type 45.

I think you need to realise and understand that there are other things that Type 23 does right now that aren't ASW as you seem to be under the impression that's the only reason anyone would build an escort.

Bolting phalanx and CAMM plus artisan 3D onto an OPV will push the cost of an OPV into the realms of Type 26 so why do it? We've been over this time and again - the cost of a ship is driven by the systems fitted to it. Either you build a decent escort with sufficient systems and weapons, or crews will die when it fails in combat.

Muddled view? If you mean I don't believe the sole purpose of a frigate is ASW, yeah, guilty as charged.

 

[StobieWan]

Except that the RN want and can find a use for those 5 GP Type 26, they don't want, have no use for and can't even afford aircraft for a third CVF.

Building a third CVF would be a pointless extravagence.

Seeing as how at least one RN admiral is on record as saying it'd be a struggle to man the two we have, I should say so.

 

[Anixtu]

DIf I understand correctly we will be ordering 4 MARS vessels. Is the future fleet:

3 Bay class
1 Diligence
1 Argus
2 Wave
4 MARS

There are multiple elements to MARS. That ordered this year was MARS Fleet Tanker (FT). MARS Solid Support, the Fort class replacement, is still in development, and is currently planned to be a class of 3 ships.

psun100001: My understanding is that the RFA will also get 3 dry store replenishment ships to replace the Forts. Originally, they we also going to get 2 JSS 's, as well to replace Argus and probably Diligence. The latter 2 seem to have been kicked into the long grass and perhaps the role of the dry store ships will be extended.

MARS originally consisted of 4 elements: Fleet Tanker x 5, Fleet Tanker (Carrier Strike) x 1, Fleet Solid Support (FSS) x 2 and Joint Sea Based Logistics (JSBL) x 3. FSS was to replace the Forts in their task-group support role whilst JSBL was to replace the Forts' 3 Cdo Bde sustainment role. FSS and JSBL have been merged into 3 x MARS Solid Support which I expect will lose most of the amphibious features of JSBL. JSBL was not a JSS-a-like - no RORO vehicle capacity.

Argus and Diligence replacement programmes are dead or lost. Joint Casualty Treatment Ship (JCTS) disappeared mid-2000s and Operational Maintenance And Repair (OMAR) has not been heard of for some time. Neither has been merged into MARS. Argus and Diligence are both due to retire about 2020.

 

[1805]

Except that the RN want and can find a use for those 5 GP Type 26, they don't want, have no use for and can't even afford aircraft for a third CVF.

Building a third CVF would be a pointless extravagence.

The CVF will alter the whole balance of UK defence capability. If you look back to when we last operated carriers approaching this size, the UK faced a major Soviet threat. The scale of the RAF compared to the relative modest size of the fixed wing FAA, even when we were operating 3 Fleet carriers in the 60s, was completely different; I don’t know the exact numbers but say 1/10, maybe 1/15. Additionally the location of the principle threat was Europe/UK, which also did not naturally support the retention of carriers.

The position today is very different, the direct threats are now nearly all likely to be further afield, the number of sovereign basis has declined and are not always in ideal locations. We can only speculate on F35 numbers, but I think it is fair to estimate c40-60, and probably these will be at the expense of all the Tornados. We could easily end up with a 1/3 of high performance jets being carrier based/capable. The role of the CVF will move to centre stage of UK Defence .

I think it would be rare to need more than 2 at once. But if we say 45 aircraft each for a surge capability, is 135 aircraft such an excessive number? Maybe an combined air group of:

Strike – 24 Apache, 36 F35

Logistics/assault – 36 (Chinook/Merlin)

Support – AEW/ASW/Guard/liaison – 39 (V22/Merlin/Wildcat).

The 30 year CAPEX cost will be about half 5 GP Type 26 and the crew similar.

 

[1805]

Type 26 will have a quiet hull and props plus probably a decent bow sonar as opposed to the very basic mine detection kit on the Type 45.

I think you need to realise and understand that there are other things that Type 23 does right now that aren't ASW as you seem to be under the impression that's the only reason anyone would build an escort.

Bolting phalanx and CAMM plus artisan 3D onto an OPV will push the cost of an OPV into the realms of Type 26 so why do it? We've been over this time and again - the cost of a ship is driven by the systems fitted to it. Either you build a decent escort with sufficient systems and weapons, or crews will die when it fails in combat.

Muddled view? If you mean I don't believe the sole purpose of a frigate is ASW, yeah, guilty as charged.

But you can't explain what a GP Type 26 will provide that can't be done by 8 ASW Type 26 & Type 6 45s ships. You just keep saying we must have them. Supplement the frigate, in the constabulary work with OPVs and they can focus on what they are good at. The danger is by going for numbers they reduce the core ASW capability of the frigates.

I didn't know the Type 45 just had mine detection kit.

 

[Repulse]

Ah, no, last single unit price for T45 was about 750 million so it's either 2 T45's with AWD, no ASW or ASuW beyond the embarked helicopter, or five capable frigates with a wide spectrum of roles. I'd take the frigates every day of the week and so would the RN.

A single Astute would be about a billion (don't start down the "difference between delaying it and building another one." comparison - that money's already been squandered.)

Neither do we save any money in terms of design costs by building either of those since we still have to buy Type 26 with TAS - and that effectively means that the 5 GP variants will be "proven" or OTS or whatever you like to call it.


I don't agree that 14 surface combatants is "enough" when we're struggling to cover everything with 19 right now.

750mn per T45 is too high, most of the development costs for Sampson and Aster have already been spent. Also, I don't believe all the costs to slow down the SSN build for the next 10 years has been squandered - retaining capability and skills is where most of the money is going.

The point I am making and you are not answering is what are the scenarios where a GP version of a T26 is actually the only and best approach? Don't say hot war without a convincing argument why where a GP T26 is the best asset. I'm sure that we can all think of better ant-piracy, national evacuation, humanitarian relief, or patrol assets.


You are right that 19 frigates/destroyers + 12 (at best) MHPCs is probably not enough, but could 14 frigates/destroyers + 12 Visbys + 12 MHPCs be better for example? What would you rather have in a hot war with Iran? Alternatively, would a permanent world beating SSN based in the far east, give the UK the best bang for it's buck?

 

[RobWilliams]

But you can't explain what a GP Type 26 will provide that can't be done by 8 ASW Type 26 & Type 6 45s ships. You just keep saying we must have them. Supplement the frigate, in the constabulary work with OPVs and they can focus on what they are good at. The danger is by going for numbers they reduce the core ASW capability of the frigates.

I didn't know the Type 45 just had mine detection kit.

This is going to sound very much like handbags, but I doubt any reason we will give you will satisfy you in terms of needing the frigates as much as no reason you could give to us would change our minds in terms of an extra CVF, so go figure

IMO what a GP T26 would do, is (in terms of conflict), either take over the roles of ASW frigates on deployment at the time (if more ASW was required) in order to free them up for deployment in a CBG or if there's a mix in a CBG then the ASW T26 will focus on ASW duties and the rest will provide land attack, anti ship, so on and so forth. Or on a very crude level it means it can throw up more CAMM-Ms in the event of a close air attack.

That's something I didn't think about (i know, bringing up CEC again), but doesn't a couple of T-26 full of Aster 15 + Aster 30 with CEC piggybacking off a T45 radar image seem like a good idea?

AFAIK T45 has a basic hull mounted sonar of some description, but that's about it.

 

[1805]

This is going to sound very much like handbags, but I doubt any reason we will give you will satisfy you in terms of needing the frigates as much as no reason you could give to us would change our minds in terms of an extra CVF, so go figure

IMO what a GP T26 would do, is (in terms of conflict), either take over the roles of ASW frigates on deployment at the time (if more ASW was required) in order to free them up for deployment in a CBG or if there's a mix in a CBG then the ASW T26 will focus on ASW duties and the rest will provide land attack, anti ship, so on and so forth. Or on a very crude level it means it can throw up more CAMM-Ms in the event of a close air attack.

That's something I didn't think about (i know, bringing up CEC again), but doesn't a couple of T-26 full of Aster 15 + Aster 30 with CEC piggybacking off a T45 radar image seem like a good idea?

AFAIK T45 has a basic hull mounted sonar of some description, but that's about it.

Well I think you have answered the GP frigate capability question.

On CEC would it be better linked up to a, powerful radar 25,000ft above mast height?

 

[kev 99]

The CVF will alter the whole balance of UK defence capability. If you look back to when we last operated carriers approaching this size, the UK faced a major Soviet threat. The scale of the RAF compared to the relative modest size of the fixed wing FAA, even when we were operating 3 Fleet carriers in the 60s, was completely different; I don’t know the exact numbers but say 1/10, maybe 1/15. Additionally the location of the principle threat was Europe/UK, which also did not naturally support the retention of carriers.

The position today is very different, the direct threats are now nearly all likely to be further afield, the number of sovereign basis has declined and are not always in ideal locations. We can only speculate on F35 numbers, but I think it is fair to estimate c40-60, and probably these will be at the expense of all the Tornados. We could easily end up with a 1/3 of high performance jets being carrier based/capable. The role of the CVF will move to centre stage of UK Defence .

I think it would be rare to need more than 2 at once. But if we say 45 aircraft each for a surge capability, is 135 aircraft such an excessive number? Maybe an combined air group of:

Strike – 24 Apache, 36 F35

Logistics/assault – 36 (Chinook/Merlin)

Support – AEW/ASW/Guard/liaison – 39 (V22/Merlin/Wildcat).

The 30 year CAPEX cost will be about half 5 GP Type 26 and the crew similar.

Thanks for the history lesson, as for the rest of it your arguments are irrelevant, the RN will not have the budget to operate a third CVF and the UK won't have enough aircraft for it either.

Also as we've already discussed Apache's make more sense on a much cheaper LPH or LHD.

 

[ASSAIL]

Gents I've been following thediscussion with interest. It prompted me to look at the RN website Home | Royal Navy and read the RN's view of its CONOPS vis a vis SDSR and Mission Statements.

IMHO the only way you can possibly meet those demands is by increasing numbers of SSN/SSG, possibly double, for warfighting and at least double the numbers for escorts both for CV protection and or constabulary roles.

Their is little connect between what is required by govt and what is available to execute!

I'm sure this is not news however, increasing SM hulls, even if its SSG is a short cut to power projection so desperately needed, a great force enabler.

 

[1805]

Thanks for the history lesson, as for the rest of it your arguments are irrelevant, the RN will not have the budget to operate a third CVF and the UK won't have enough aircraft for it either.

Also as we've already discussed Apache's make more sense on a much cheaper LPH or LHD.

I was trying to say operating CVFs will not be like the past, it will finish the rational for most of the RAF. A third CVF is quite affordable and cheaper than 4-5 GP Type 26 are likely to be. It's fair to say one will probably be in reserve/refit, that said most of the aircraft I have suggested as an air group we already have or are on order.

As the number of carriers increase in other navies the attractiveness of a third will become more evident. People stuggle to understand concepts when they are on paper, ever when they are being shipped in blocks to Rosyth, the day a F35 goes into action from the decks, the public will be behind them. Getting additional funding for 300-400m to create all that employment a double bonus....RN create employment for modest funding.

 

[kev 99]

I was trying to say operating CVFs will not be like the past, it will finish the rational for most of the RAF. A third CVF is quite affordable and cheaper than 4-5 GP Type 26 are likely to be. It's fair to say one will probably be in reserve/refit, that said most of the aircraft I have suggested as an air group we already have or are on order.

As the number of carriers increase in other navies the attractiveness of a third will become more evident. People stuggle to understand concepts when they are on paper, ever when they are being shipped in blocks to Rosyth, the day a F35 goes into action from the decks, the public will be behind them. Getting additional funding for 300-400m to create all that employment a double bonus....RN create employment for modest funding.

It might be cheaper than building 5 GP frigates but those Frigates are already in the equipment programme and we have a use for them, we don't have a use for a third CVF no matter how you try and dress it up, and no we won't have the aircraft in the numbers that are required for HMS Extravagance's airgroup.

Last I heard the RN wasn't a job creation scheme either, which is just as well since your scheme involved robbing jobs used for 5 GP Frigates to create jobs for an unnecessary aircraft carrier. I would imagine the net gain in job terms would be not much if any.

I honestly can't see what your hard on for a third CVF is all about, especially since a number of people have already explained to you for a fraction of the cost we could get a couple of LPH/LHD which would provide a much greater utility.

Times are hard money is in short supply, the RN has to spend all of it's money as wisely as it can, should it be the beneficiary of additional funds there are numerous things they would rather spend money on than a prestige ship they have no use for that would just turn into an unused white elephant.

 

[kev 99]

Gents I've been following thediscussion with interest. It prompted me to look at the RN website Home | Royal Navy and read the RN's view of its CONOPS vis a vis SDSR and Mission Statements.

IMHO the only way you can possibly meet those demands is by increasing numbers of SSN/SSG, possibly double, for warfighting and at least double the numbers for escorts both for CV protection and or constabulary roles.

Their is little connect between what is required by govt and what is available to execute!

I'm sure this is not news however, increasing SM hulls, even if its SSG is a short cut to power projection so desperately needed, a great force enabler.

I rather strongly suspect that another Astute would be right at the top of the list of things the RN would most like to have should additional funds be made available.

 

[StobieWan]

You are right that 19 frigates/destroyers + 12 (at best) MHPCs is probably not enough, but could 14 frigates/destroyers + 12 Visbys + 12 MHPCs be better for example? What would you rather have in a hot war with Iran? Alternatively, would a permanent world beating SSN based in the far east, give the UK the best bang for it's buck?

In a hot war with Iran ?

I'll take 19 destroyers and frigates every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I've no idea why you're even asking the question - Visby can't self deploy as it has limited endurance, very limited AA capability, zero ability to take a hit. We'd never get 12 there as you'd have to transport them down then fly crews down. Visby is not and never will be what the RN needs - it's a coastal ship with limited range (about 2000nm at 15kts) Scotland might do well to license produce them if they get independence I guess. No hangar is a bit of a limitation for one of it's roles (ASW)

The RN is a blue water force, and those GP frigates can do the full spectrum of operations, including ensuring the safety of shipping in the area, doing the stop and check work, shelling the odd rocket battery, provide a deck for spec ops insertion and recovery, perform land attack. They have the defensive and offensive systems to take on a missile attack, defeat it, blow snot out of the offending missile battery before it can scoot away. They can go a long way, stay there for a long time and do a lot of missions, while remaining quite survivable.

I'm baffled why I have to explain this to you when you could just look at what the GP Type 23's are doing right now ?

You either have to preposition the Visby's in much the same way we do with the mine hunters or charter ships to piggy back them places. You're getting about 2.1-2.2 Visby's for the price of a Type 26 but getting them places is a chore.

MHPC I'm a lot more enthusiastic about as they look to be fairly large and capable OPV's but they need top cover and an AWD present in a shooting war (much as the current mine hunters do when plying their trade)

I honestly don't understand why Visby or the various short legged beasties like the Israeli corvette get dragged up when they're quite literally more trouble than they're worth to a blue water navy.

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Last I heard the RN wasn't a job creation scheme either, which is just as well since your scheme involved robbing jobs used for 5 GP Frigates to create jobs for an unnecessary aircraft carrier. I would imagine the net gain in job terms would be not much if any.

Best quote I've heard yet on this was a straight line from one of HMS Turb's crew on the subject:

"The business of the Royal Navy is to do violence to the enemies of her Majesty's Government"

Job's a good 'un - I can live with that mission statement.

 

[Volkodav]

GP frigates are the modern day equivalent of cruisers. They carry out the same sort of tasks and are capable of independant operations as well as being capable fleet escorts. These are tasks that a corvette, OPV, FAC or even an LCS or USCG High endurance Cutter would struggle, if not fail to undertake successfully.