The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

The paint is actually quite an advance, it's helps with self cleaning the hull. It's been available commercially for some time but RN is now using. I saw the underside of HMS Albion and although she had been at sea for a while the hull was as clean as a new car in a showroom. A few spots caused by standing at the quay before going into dry dock; I was told it would just brush off as soon as she moved at any speed through water. It has the potential to push out the times between dry docking.

Interesting, it's these sorts of not-really-noticable developments which can cumulatively have a significant effect on the fleet.

D'you know if the T45s have this paint? Diamond onwards probably does, given Edinburghs refit was 2010 and Diamond was commissioned in May 2011 I think.

 

[1805]

Interesting, it's these sorts of not-really-noticable developments which can cumulatively have a significant effect on the fleet.

D'you know if the T45s have this paint? Diamond onwards probably does, given Edinburghs refit was 2010 and Diamond was commissioned in May 2011 I think.

I would be surprised if not, I think it is pretty standard now with the RN and I am sure Albion was last refitted prior to 2010. Apparantly it's also cheaper as it's the standard stuff used commerically.

Your right there are so many efficiencies that just happen, that don't get noticed. It's a while back now but the privatization of the RN Dockyards. They would never have taken on some of the work they do now. DML recently built/fitted out a 96m Yacht VAVA 2 (I wouldn't mind one of those myself!) and even overhauled some First Great Western trains. The RN is dependent on a healthy industrial base, I hope that as the ACA is moving to completion and maybe if the BAE/EADS merger comes off there will be a opportunity to look at new industrial strategy/commericial re-alignment.

 

[StobieWan]

In regards to SSGN/SSN, i know the RN wont get any It was just a nomenclature issue because I've seen it thrown around (and know an example of one) but couldn't for the life of me think what was different. TLAM? No, VLS TLAM? No.

So it really is just a massive TLAM carrying SSBN - in effect?

Thanks for the clarification

In US service, that's what it means - as others have pointed out, there's a healthy case for referring to the Kursk and similar as SSGN's - I'm a bit reluctant to do so as it seems fairly obvious that anything with a VLS cell or a torpedo tube could launch a missile of some sort. SSBN > SSGN seems a fairly logical change in title as you've taken a chuffing big missile boat, and converted it for the primary purpose of carrying and launching conventional land attack missiles.

Or we could agree it's a woolly term

There *is* talk about assigning a conventional role to the Successor boats, and that would be easy to do as the CMC is intended to be adaptable to these purposes. Obviously, you'd not want a nuclear armed missile boat doing the conventional work at the same time as they'd likely have to be in different places at the same time, and you'd have the problem of exposing the deterrent boat. It's an interesting idea however.

 

[kev 99]

Personally I'd much rather the MOD built an extra successor and filled if full of TLAMs instead, in the same way as the Ohio's have been.

I don't want the countries nuclear deterent boats but at risk by being sent into a war zone.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, if you built five, you could have one on patrol as a boomer and another out as a GN - CMC should let you "swing role" the lot, leaving three "down" doing other stuff like refits, training etc. As far as I understand it, CMC missile tubes are a larger aperture than the Trident tubes, so you can either slot in a larger missile in future or a sleeved VLS silo for TLAM.

The *potential* to swing role a boomer is there. I'd prefer five boats on that basis as the incremental cost would be relatively low compared to the total project cost and you'd get more value out of the Successor fleet as a whole.

I make no representation about this actually happening however

 

[kev 99]

That works for me, with only 4 Successors you're always going to be taking a massive risk by using one as a cruise missile launcher, after all 1 will always be active, another one standby, 1 in refit and the other should be back home with the crew on leave. Basically the only way to do it would be to use the standby boat and if you get a crash like the Vanguard incident a couple of years ago you could end up with no available replacement.

 

[RobWilliams]

Personally I'd much rather the MOD built an extra successor and filled if full of TLAMs instead, in the same way as the Ohio's have been.

I don't want the countries nuclear deterent boats but at risk by being sent into a war zone.

I'd much prefer the MOD to build a couple more Astutes for the cost of a single Successor, especially with the PWR3.

That's something I don't get, it's a bit strange isn't it? The last Astute to get a larger and probably more powerful reactor than the rest of the fleet.

 

[the concerned]

I agree i've always thought that the RN needs at least 10-12 ssns with the kind of disputes that are looking like a possibility these are essential.

 

[1805]

SSBN & SSN are steath weapons, it's much better if we fit all the T26/T45 with a reasonable number of cruise missiles, rather than expose valuable assets.

That said we should build sufficient nuclear boats to keep a balanced industrial cycle going. If that means more, I would rather 3 SSBN and 2 more Astute (or maybe a sub class, I think we should avoid completely new designs. If the magic number was 12 (3 SSBN & 9 SSN) then a build of 4 a decade.

 

[StobieWan]

We need more of the entire Navy apart from carriers to be honest - more AWD's, more Frigates, more OPV's, the lot. Ah well, ain't happening

I do wonder if they intend to put TLAM on board Type 26, as it'd be a big investment for a marginal capability unless there were plans to buy a *lot* more into the inventory.

 

[1805]

We need more of the entire Navy apart from carriers to be honest - more AWD's, more Frigates, more OPV's, the lot. Ah well, ain't happening

I do wonder if they intend to put TLAM on board Type 26, as it'd be a big investment for a marginal capability unless there were plans to buy a *lot* more into the inventory.

Whether it is marginal would depend on the relative cost of: sub launched, VLS ship launched and airborne launched missiles. These are weapons that are likely to be regularly used although our current stocks will impact the cost of a new buy. I understood RN sub stocks are not huge, but RAF Storm Shadow are c900 (although they will have used some of these).

I would think SCALP would significantly increase the flexibility of the T45/T26 and reduce the reliance on aircraft delivery which was problematic in Libya.

I can't see the UK funding TLAM integration for Sylver and surely nothing would symbolize the lack of focus and strategic direction in UK defence procurement, than if we fitted a ship with both Sylver & Mk 41 VLS.

 

[RobWilliams]

I would think SCALP would significantly increase the flexibility of the T45/T26 and reduce the reliance on aircraft delivery which was problematic in Libya.

I can't see the UK funding TLAM integration for Sylver and surely nothing would symbolize the lack of focus and strategic direction in UK defence procurement, than if we fitted a ship with both Sylver & Mk 41 VLS.

I was thinking about this the other way, the more I think about it the more I see the MdCN being used, except with a more "British" name.

As for VLS TLAM, how different is it in comparison to torp-tube launched TLAM? I assume any TLAM buys for T26 would have to be seperate to the SSN stock anyway so is that such a big issue - the idea that the SSNs would suffer from depleted stocks?

I'd still prefer TLAM though, according to Wiki figures the standard TLAM has a range of 1,700km compared to 1000+km for the MdCN.

I'm sure the MOD will look at the ASuW capability too (as far as we can see, it'll be the only munition for that role on the ship), no idea how the MdCN (or StormShadow for that matter) does against surface ships but at least with the TLAM family we have the TASM.

 

[swerve]

AFAIK the Tomahawk anti-ship missile was withdrawn from USN service quite a long time ago, & stocks rebuilt into TLAM. The RN has never operated it.

 

[RobWilliams]

AFAIK the Tomahawk anti-ship missile was withdrawn from USN service quite a long time ago, & stocks rebuilt into TLAM. The RN has never operated it.

Ah, I see. I tried googling it but didn't find much info, guess that should've been a hint huh.

I wasn't saying the RN has operated it, what I was saying what that if we went the TLAM route for our surface ships then the TASM could be availabile if the RN wanted it. Of course, it's all academic now as the thing doesn't exist anymore.

 

[StobieWan]

TASM was a bit of a monster for the job as if it were used at the ranges possible, you could have all sorts of funky madness going on - like the USN ship that managed to splash *itself* in exercise.

I'd like to see more modern weapons becoming available in any event - something that sat between TASM and say, Harpoon, with a LO profile and a multi-mode seeker head (pinch that from Brimstone II) - something that had some legs, a reasonable punch but wasn't as leggy or as expensive as TASM, and had a programmable effects warhead that could pop a structure or batter a ship, that sort of thing.

 

[fretburner]

I'm moving the discussion for a carrier-borne AEW aircraft for the RN from the AF discussions...

Nwy... having come across an interesting blog... I'd like to know what your take on this? V-22 AEW

To address the foreseen 4-year gap, some folks think the best solution is just moving the radar from the "baggers" to the Merlin HM1s

 

[StobieWan]

Well, the Cerberus kit from the SeaKings is pretty capable - probably better at tracking boat swarms and picking up sub scopes than the E-2C for instance - and it's already in service. I'd palletise the lot into Merlin and revisit the situation post 2015 personally.

On an Osprey based solution, my main objections would be to the cost of standing up a very small fleet of expensive aircraft with all the overheads involved for a UK only solution.

If (and it's a big *if*) say, UK Specops picked up Osprey and we ended up needing a modest sized fleet of them, then I'd be fairly encouraged by the idea. Osprey is expensive as hell tho Both to buy and to own - sticking the RN with the total overheads for a fleet of five or six doesn't tick many boxes in terms of practicality or cost effectiveness.

The MOD in the form of Peter Luff is on record as saying there was no requirement and that any talk of a buy for V-22 was just Boeing bigging up a non existent deal.

 

[fretburner]

^ I did remember reading about that -- that there wasn't a need for the V-22 anywhere in the British military.

Just how expensive is the V-22 versus the Merlins? Price ranges of the Osprey from various online "sources" range from 32M to 60+M USD versus the Merlin which is often quoted in the low 20's.

 

[StobieWan]

Well, we've got the Merlins so they're paid for, we already have the supply chain and support overheads, which automatically makes them quite a bit cheaper to run. I believe V22 is something like $40m a hit which is a bit more than a Chinook.

You'd get more endurance out of 'em than Merlin and of course, they'd make a good COD solution etc, but unless we can spread the costs much more thinly than four or five cabs, it'll look very expensive.

 

[RobWilliams]

If (and it's a big *if*) say, UK Specops picked up Osprey and we ended up needing a modest sized fleet of them, then I'd be fairly encouraged by the idea. Osprey is expensive as hell tho Both to buy and to own - sticking the RN with the total overheads for a fleet of five or six doesn't tick many boxes in terms of practicality or cost effectiveness.

Word on the street is they're already getting 4 extra Wildcats kitted out for that sort of thing already ontop of the 4 they're already getting. The Lynx in this config is being put down as a LAH variant (Light Assault Helicopter)

This decision seems to be further supported by comments made by defence procurement minister Peter Luff to the House of Commons a month later on Dec. 14, 2011: “We are planning to increase numbers of Wildcat helicopters being purchased from 62 to 66. The fleet will consist of three types: 28 Helicopter Maritime Attack, 30 Army Helicopter (AH), and eight LAH [versions]. Four of the LAH aircraft were previously to have been AH type. The costs of conversion are still under consideration.” AgustaWestland’s Hillcoat said that he could not comment on the proposal as the company currently had no further orders for the proposed additional aircraft. He also could not state how this aircraft, in a light assault helicopter role, might differ in specification from the planned Army version.

Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Is AW159 Lynx Wildcat Wild Enough?

The MOD in the form of Peter Luff is on record as saying there was no requirement and that any talk of a buy for V-22 was just Boeing bigging up a non existent deal.

Yeah, I think he said something along the lines of " . . but being the good salesmen that they are, they keep offering it".

Generally I think there's too much emphasis put on what everyone else has for particular roles and how our replacement is crap, rather than looking at the replacement in comparison to what it's actually replacing.

As for the worry about a 4 year capability gap, I think that's becoming a little too much "can't see the wood for the trees". After all the IOC of QE isn't until 2020 ain't it? So the ships won't actually be deploying anywhere until that date, so there's not a huuuuge need for it before then is there?

This is probably a good time to ask people what're the latest dates for the QE they've got. AFAIK QE is meant to be structurally complete by Oct 2013, flight testing in 2018 and ISD of 2020. So i'd hazard a guess she'll start sea trials late 2015-2016? Sound about right?