The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Numbers of F35b over time, could easily be c90, as they are likely to replace the Tornado fleet along with the by then long forgotten FA2, GR9s (200+ aircraft). The financial position is much better now for the MOD and over the next 10 years better control should mean there is the money. I am sure funding for a modest number of P8 (say 6-8) can also be available.

Exactly, but you still find people who merely grunt "We'll be lucky to get 48 and won't ever see them get on a carrier, may as well have gone for LPHs", which is depressing IMO.

IIRC the MOD have got a strict budget for the next 10 years (I think is the timeframe) for core equipment with around £8billion for extras. Personally I think that the MOD now it's been brought in line with Hammond (For better or for worse) is in a better position for more organised procurement.

Take current + future projects, if there's one Type 26 delivered every year from 2021 then it'll be ~2034 before the final ones will be delivered. During which the last Astute(s) will be being delivered, the Vanguard replacements will be following on right behind (first delivery in 2028 at the moment) and roughly that's when Albion/Bulwark will be due to be replaced and then we've got the MHPC to build. Not to mention replacing RFA Argus, Diligence + new solid stores ships (something i've put in a FOI request to the MOD about current plans) so for the next couple of decades British shipyards should be very busy and therefore careful planning is at a premium.

When I actually think about it, there's a fairly solid + consistent amount of work to come the UK's way in the future (except maybe MARS solid stores, that'll probably be a Daewoo job).

 

[1805]

Exactly, but you still find people who merely grunt "We'll be lucky to get 48 and won't ever see them get on a carrier, may as well have gone for LPHs", which is depressing IMO.

IIRC the MOD have got a strict budget for the next 10 years (I think is the timeframe) for core equipment with around £8billion for extras. Personally I think that the MOD now it's been brought in line with Hammond (For better or for worse) is in a better position for more organised procurement.

Take current + future projects, if there's one Type 26 delivered every year from 2021 then it'll be ~2034 before the final ones will be delivered. During which the last Astute(s) will be being delivered, the Vanguard replacements will be following on right behind (first delivery in 2028 at the moment) and roughly that's when Albion/Bulwark will be due to be replaced and then we've got the MHPC to build. Not to mention replacing RFA Argus, Diligence + new solid stores ships (something i've put in a FOI request to the MOD about current plans) so for the next couple of decades British shipyards should be very busy and therefore careful planning is at a premium.

When I actually think about it, there's a fairly solid + consistent amount of work to come the UK's way in the future (except maybe MARS solid stores, that'll probably be a Daewoo job).

I think there is protential for a gap in shipyard work, as the CVFs are complete. They will be largely finished 1-2 years before commissioned. I personally think MHPC & Type 26/destroyer (assume they eventually merge the latter types) production should run alongside in a continuous cycle. Also the MHPC probably has the greater export potential.

 

[RobWilliams]

I think there is protential for a gap in shipyard work, as the CVFs are complete. They will be largely finished 1-2 years before commissioned. I personally think MHPC & Type 26/destroyer (assume they eventually merge the latter types) production should run alongside in a continuous cycle. Also the MHPC probably has the greater export potential.

That's true, according to the ACA HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to be structurally complete in late 2013 and by that idea (roughly 2 years before entering service) , HMS Prince of Wales will be complete in 2016 (assuming 2018 ISD is correct).

Using roughly the same timeframe as the HMS Daring, she was first laid down March '03 and was commissioned July '09 meaning ~6 years. So because T26 is meant to be using already existing systems and say that cut the time down to what, 5 years then it'd roughly coincide with HMS Prince of Wales finishing. Best case scenario would be that they move up MHPC to plug the gap to keep the skills base up and running, kinda makes me wish that a British yard put up a contract for the MARS fleet tankers.

True, it's cutting it very close, but IMO it's offset with pretty much guaranteed work for at least the next 2 decades.

 

[StobieWan]

If they start cutting steel on the 26's to schedule then there should be a continuous flow of work to keep the yards busy - we'll likely see some reduction in capacity as stuff was ramped up for CVF originally but I don't know where this "gap" comes from.

MHPC isn't even a gleam in the milkman's eye as yet however - the Hunts, Rivers etc are all good for 2020 or longer.

 

[RobWilliams]

If they start cutting steel on the 26's to schedule then there should be a continuous flow of work to keep the yards busy - we'll likely see some reduction in capacity as stuff was ramped up for CVF originally but I don't know where this "gap" comes from.

MHPC isn't even a gleam in the milkman's eye as yet however - the Hunts, Rivers etc are all good for 2020 or longer.

IIRC the date to start cutting steel is 2016 isn't it?

Well, I suppose when HMS Queen Elizabeth is done, then the rest of the yards will be free to work up the modules for HMS Prince of Wales wouldn't they? So there might be the possibly the risk that the latter's build time may be sped up somewhat because of this? But even then the sucker has to be kitted out etc.

There was a big to-do about it a while ago and ultimately started the whole issue of Portsmouth possibly closing down.

I'd love to see what they're thinking in regards to MHPC however.

 

[StobieWan]

I think the panic over Portsmouth is more related to the the suspicion that there won't be enough work to keep all the yards open post CVF, as opposed to their being a gap in orders. ThinPinstriped Blog covered this in a bit more detail earlier this year and I found it an interesting and carefully considered article - if I can dig it out, I'll post the link.

I certainly would like to see MHPC brought forward as a way to get some OPV's into work with some legs however.

The Scottish Independence vote may also have some interesting effects if (against all polls so far) the Scots go independent.

 

[RobWilliams]

True, True. Well from my perspective looks like the yards are going to have more work on their hands than they can handle, especially if the Scots go independent and we lose the yards north of the border.

As 1805 said earlier, I like the export potential that the MHPC may have, considering the variety of roles it can do.

HOLD THE PHONE!

Check out this pic from Euronaval 2012 of the Type 26!

The 4 tubes by the CAMM launchers, IMO they're going to be the Stingray tubes from the Type 23 because they're in the same arrangement + direction as the Type 23's.

The person who posted this on another forum said that when asked the were either "decoy or torpedo launchers" + also commented about the white domes either side of the mast, something not previously seen on past graphics.

 

[1805]

True, True. Well from my perspective looks like the yards are going to have more work on their hands than they can handle, especially if the Scots go independent and we lose the yards north of the border.

As 1805 said earlier, I like the export potential that the MHPC may have, considering the variety of roles it can do.

HOLD THE PHONE!

Check out this pic from Euronaval 2012 of the Type 26!

The 4 tubes by the CAMM launchers, IMO they're going to be the Stingray tubes from the Type 23 because they're in the same arrangement + direction as the Type 23's.

The person who posted this on another forum said that when asked the were either "decoy or torpedo launchers" + also commented about the white domes either side of the mast, something not previously seen on past graphics.

Interesting the Phalanx (very hard to make out but it also looks like a Phalanx and not a DE version!) seems to have moved to a similar position to the Type 45,

 

[RobWilliams]

Yup, looks like they've liked the experiences they've been getting with those positions, nice arcs of fire.

Although I have to say, after reading "Ordeal by Exocet - HMS Glamorgan and the Falklands War" (VERY good read, got hit by an Exocet and survived due to a very dedicated crew via damage control, extremely highly recommended) would be turning your flank of the ship into the missile so Phalanx can have a crack be a good idea, considering it shows a bigger target? In the Falklands they turned into the missile to try get the missile to glance off the hull so this seems like a reversal of doctrine.

EDIT: Pfffft . . . . DE Phalanx indeed . . . . You can see the barrel of the thing so that's good enough for me, that and the fact that I prefer reality.

 

[StobieWan]

True, True. Well from my perspective looks like the yards are going to have more work on their hands than they can handle, especially if the Scots go independent and we lose the yards north of the border.

As 1805 said earlier, I like the export potential that the MHPC may have, considering the variety of roles it can do.

HOLD THE PHONE!

Check out this pic from Euronaval 2012 of the Type 26!

The 4 tubes by the CAMM launchers, IMO they're going to be the Stingray tubes from the Type 23 because they're in the same arrangement + direction as the Type 23's.

The person who posted this on another forum said that when asked the were either "decoy or torpedo launchers" + also commented about the white domes either side of the mast, something not previously seen on past graphics.

If those at torpedo tubes, then they'd be one shot affairs - can't see how they'd be reloadable under way.

Type 22 had a common magazine arrangement where the torpedoes from the magazine could be passed either to the hangar or the tubes - no idea how they're handled on Type 23.

I must admit, my first thought when I saw them was they might be life rafts but I'm clueless

 

[1805]

Yup, looks like they've liked the experiences they've been getting with those positions, nice arcs of fire.

Although I have to say, after reading "Ordeal by Exocet - HMS Glamorgan and the Falklands War" (VERY good read, got hit by an Exocet and survived due to a very dedicated crew via damage control, extremely highly recommended) would be turning your flank of the ship into the missile so Phalanx can have a crack be a good idea, considering it shows a bigger target? In the Falklands they turned into the missile to try get the missile to glance off the hull so this seems like a reversal of doctrine.

EDIT: Pfffft . . . . DE Phalanx indeed . . . . You can see the barrel of the thing so that's good enough for me, that and the fact that I prefer reality.

I assume it is considered more likely that you will not have the time to move a ship, so the best place to fit the CIWS is where the missile will be heading.

 

[1805]

BTW The second row of VLS look even more like Sylver.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, scratch that.

On a closer inspection, they appear to be DLF-3 decoys. There are 2 fitted at that angle on each side of the Type 23 under the bridge and these look pretty much identical.

Add to that a picture of the DLF-3 decoy and you find the answer

Irvin-GQ News Releases - Irvin-GQ awarded Naval Decoy enhancement contract by UK MOD

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah, scratch that.

On a closer inspection, they appear to be DLF-3 decoys. There are 2 fitted at that angle on each side of the Type 23 under the bridge and these look pretty much identical.

Add to that a picture of the DLF-3 decoy and you find the answer

Irvin-GQ News Releases - Irvin-GQ awarded Naval Decoy enhancement contract by UK MOD

Seems a bit more likely

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, but they must be plugging in the Stingray tubes somewhere, surely?

I'm not a big fan of wastage, so seeming as we've got the tubes then IMO we should fit them even if it's sort of a last ditch self defence measure against submarines.

Then the Harpoons, as a missile I really like it and seeming as we've got 2 x quad launchers coming off each Type 23 then it seems logical to use them as I don't reckon the MOD would be interested in a VL ASM.

 

[Systems Adict]

HOLD THE PHONE!

Check out this pic from Euronaval 2012 of the Type 26!

The 4 tubes by the CAMM launchers, IMO they're going to be the Stingray tubes from the Type 23 because they're in the same arrangement + direction as the Type 23's.

The person who posted this on another forum said that when asked the were either "decoy or torpedo launchers" + also commented about the white domes either side of the mast, something not previously seen on past graphics.

I reckon the x4 tubes are for decoys called 'rubber ducks'.

DLF(3) DECOY FITTED ABOARD HMS MANCHESTER - Jane's International Defence Review

In theory, they would come straight from the T-23's

SA

 

[deepsixteen]

Yup, looks like they've liked the experiences they've been getting with those positions, nice arcs of fire.

Although I have to say, after reading "Ordeal by Exocet - HMS Glamorgan and the Falklands War" (VERY good read, got hit by an Exocet and survived due to a very dedicated crew via damage control, extremely highly recommended) would be turning your flank of the ship into the missile so Phalanx can have a crack be a good idea, considering it shows a bigger target? In the Falklands they turned into the missile to try get the missile to glance off the hull so this seems like a reversal of doctrine.

EDIT: Pfffft . . . . DE Phalanx indeed . . . . You can see the barrel of the thing so that's good enough for me, that and the fact that I prefer reality.

Hi

Ian’s book is very good but I would not draw any conclusions re the sighting of CIWS from a single perspective and would note the book makes no mention of the incoming being engaged by the port seacat which may well have struck the incoming a glancing blow within the arm range of the weapon.

The tubes next to the VLS are almost certainly decoy launchers.

Deepsixteen

 

[Systems Adict]

Type 22 had a common magazine arrangement where the torpedoes from the magazine could be passed either to the hangar or the tubes - no idea how they're handled on Type 23.

T-23 has the torpedo launchers in the magazine, with an access door into the hangar, so that the helicopter can be loaded with whatever is needed.

Saves having to haul stuff up onto the upper-deck to load the launchers.


SA

 

[StobieWan]

T-23 has the torpedo launchers in the magazine, with an access door into the hangar, so that the helicopter can be loaded with whatever is needed.

Saves having to haul stuff up onto the upper-deck to load the launchers.


SA

Cheers! Nice to have a better understanding of how it works

 

[RobWilliams]

Gah! You guys are merciless! I say one little thing about it being torpedos, swiftly retract that and replace it with decoys ( + link) and I STILL get 2 replies telling me how I was wrong