The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Block LB04 certainly is a beast, I like how it really gives you an idea of the size of the hangar. If you look at the colourful schematic on how the blocks fit together on the CVF it's the last major hull section for QE as LB01/02/03 are - I think - all joined up (or at least in drydock at Rosyth) so afterwards it'll pretty much be side sponsons, flight deck + island intergration in terms of getting the ship structurally complete.

That's something I picked up on in the "How to assemble the Queen Elizabeth class carriers" video I linked earlier, after there's the GTA intergration process (~9/11/12) it goes on to say forward island intergration (~05/03/13) then seems to jump back in time - with island intergrated - to ~01/12/12 for "Docking, skidding and assembly cycle C" which shows LB04 coming into drydock.

D'you guys reckon that's a cock up on the part of the video or perhaps could the foreward island intergration date be the date it's planned to be completed? The video's meant to be in chronological order so

Good point about airflow, that'll count even more with STOVL aircraft - generally - being able to operate at higher sea states than other methods so this could crank up the 'acceptable' sea state a bit more maybe? Being able to cope with the wind over deck in nastier weather a bit more.

Here's something interesting from naval-technology.com (although it's old, it talks about S1850 + Sampson pair instead of Artisan)

Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.

Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck [like you said SA] and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings.

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF) - Naval Technology

 

[Systems Adict]

Thanks Rob !

Glad I'm not going senile in my old age !

:

SA

 

[RobWilliams]

Can't vouch for that i'm afraid

Timelapse video of LB04 leaving for Rosyth a few days ago

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYtbxQ4MVk&feature=g-u-u"]HMS Queen Elizabeth section leaves Govan for Rosyth - YouTube[/nomedia]


Am I right in assuming that a Chinook in the CVF hanger would effectively count as two spaces? Bag of a fag packet maths puts the Chinook at ~2 F35B end to end and nearly something like ~1.5 F35B and I know it's not completely accurate considering potential hanger layout variations but it'd be something close wouldn't it?

I'll be interested when she's in service and we might hopefully see some estimates about what numbers she could accomodate should she need too, 40 was the requirement but I'd be surprised if that'd be the absolute maximum she could house.

Recently i've been reading "Scram!" by Harry Benson about the part the helicopters played in the Falklands (mainly Junglies - but the others are included) and i've gotta say it does seem to have given me a better appreciation of carrier bourne rotary lift capacity.

 

[RobWilliams]

Hmm, interesting bit of info. The RN is getting the LMM - glad orders for 1000 are already put down from the MOD - and FASGW(H) for it's light/heavy ASM for the Wildcat but interestingly what the RN catagorises as heavy the MN counts as light as ANL stands for Anti-Navire Léger or "Light Anti-Ship".

MBDA puts the ISD of FASGW(H) as 2015 when the Wildcat comes in.

New info about FASGW(H)

U.K. Offers France New Deal to Kick-Start Missile Project | Defense News | defensenews.com

LONDON and PARIS — Britain has offered to fund the start of a delayed Anglo-French program to develop a new helicopter-borne anti-ship missile in order to avoid the collapse of the 2010 defense treaty between the two nations.

Under the British proposal, London will provide front-end funding of the Future Air-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) (Heavy) missile, with France paying its share of the total development cost at the back end of the 400 million euro ($510,000) program. The existing plan calls for both sides to fund the program simultaneously.

France calls its version of the weapon Anti-Navire Leger, or light anti-ship missile.

People familiar with the proposal say the missile’s delay means it might not be ready in time to meet the in-service date of the maritime version of the new Wildcat helicopter, scheduled to be operational with the Royal Navy in early 2015.

London is applying “gentle, firm and unrelenting pressure to help France make the right decision for the long term,” one British defense official said.

British authorities see the missile program as the “first and only step on a corporatist basis” to a bilateral industrial rationalization, he said.

Sad for it to come to it really, although if the French do cough up when it's their turn then there shouldn't be any issues.

 

[RobWilliams]

MARS fleet tankers named; Tide class

Names Announced for RFA Future Tankers | Royal Navy

Four new Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers which will be bought as part of the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) programme will be called the Tide class. The 37,000 tonne ships will come into service from 2016 to replace the RFA’s single hulled tankers and will maintain the Royal Navy’s dedicated bulk fuel Replenishment At Sea capabilities.

Tidespring, Tiderace, Tidesurge and Tideforce, which is a new name, will be superb ships that will reflect the successful past and a confident future for the RFA service.

Commodore Bill Walworth RFA

The 200m long tankers will also be able to carry helicopters and will support the Royal Navy warships deployed around the world.

Head of the RFA Commodore Bill Walworth said:

“I am delighted that the MARS Fleet tankers will be called the Tide class.

“The original Tides were the first purpose-built fleet tankers to support aircraft carriers and were highly successful and popular ships.

"The new Tides promise to be better still. A large number of people have worked hard to get us to this point, with the ships on contract and the first to be delivered into service in 2016.

“Tidespring, Tiderace, Tidesurge and Tideforce, which is a new name, will be superb ships that will reflect the successful past and a confident future for the RFA service.”

There it is, Tidespring, Tiderace, Tidesurge + Tideforce. Can't wait for these ships to come into service. Is the future tanker force going to be made up of the 4 MARS and 2 Wave class tankers?

 

[1805]

MARS fleet tankers named; Tide class

Names Announced for RFA Future Tankers | Royal Navy



There it is, Tidespring, Tiderace, Tidesurge + Tideforce. Can't wait for these ships to come into service. Is the future tanker force going to be made up of the 4 MARS and 2 Wave class tankers?

I still can't get my mind round the fact all 4 of these will be build in foreign yards, and as for the names, the RN just seems to live in a self indulgent world of its own!

They could have named them after some regional locations/towns. If the Waves stay, then 6 big tankers is a sizable fleet for 2 carriers 2 LPD & 19 escorts (if we get 13 Type 26). If Portsmouth does close for lack of work, just as these come into servce this will bring down a heap of trouble for the RN.

I read somewhere that the most suggested idea by the public on the Governments idea site was that the Met should give up theirs BMWs....The fine detail of the logic (if there is any) will be lost in the bad PR.

4 alternative names: Llandaff, Berwick (ok I can't think of a suitable Scottish L), Lowestoft & Londonderry.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well all apart from Tideforce have previous RN history; Tidespring got a battle honour in '82 so personally I don't really have much of an issue with them. Unlike some other RN names *cough* Sea Ceptor *cough*

Well that's how it goes, no British yard put in a contract for them for whatever reason be it they knew they'd be uncompetitive/couldn't fit it in. If British yards felt they couldn't complete the work in the timeframe and budget of their competitors then I don't think it'd be good to force work upon them when other yards have put in contracts. There's still £150mn of contracts for fitting out etc for British companies.

As for Portsmouth, the last I heard from the media (I know I know but when it comes to publishing job losses and the like you can always rely on UK media) on the issue was what, 10 months ago?

Then when I look at the projects, I'm not 100% sure the work gap exists. The first steel for the Type 26 is due to be in 2016 which makes sense as from first cut to commission was ~6 years so assuming it's a year less per Type 26 considering the "proven technology" bit 5 years sounds about right.

Anyway, Queen Elizabeth isn't due to be structurally complete until late 2013/early 2014 and the general trend is Prince of Wales' dates are 2 years behind meaning late 2015/early 2016 so they'll have the work. The major issue was the risk about not having the orders to make the yards viable to open.

Then adding in the whole Scotland issue, BAE knows that UK RN warships will be built in the UK and the UK alone so they need that capacity.

 

[StobieWan]

Exactly - Fincantieri did put a bid in, which was twice the price of the Korean bid, and the Korean bid includes spending about a third of the money on the build in Britain, doing complex high end work which retains skills we can sell competitively.

I don't think (from reading ThinPinstripedBlog) that there was space in the yards to get the tankers built in the time required (and we need those things NOW..well, two to four years ago would have been better)

 

[RobWilliams]

Definitely, IIRC there's a fairly big amount of pressure to get sid of single hulled tankers out of service ASAP.

Quite interested to find out what the plans are for the rest of the RFA myself, still waiting on my FOI request in regards to future stores ships, RFA Argus + RFA Diligence, I'm expecting the SSS to be pretty much based on the current MARS tanker design.

Interesting snippet of info, although RFA Argus is a casualty ship she's armed with CIWS + countermeasures and therefore doesn't comply with the Geneva Convention of a 'hospital ship' so no Red Cross symbol. Presumably this would make her a legitimate target in wartime?

 

[Vanguard]

The Met have actually had to give up their BMWs, the new standard vehicle will be the Skoda Octavia with the blue-yellow battenburg markings. Despite the fact that they cost about the same to buy as public-sector sales from BMW at are a much reduced price.

Personally I do not mind that these ships are being built in Korea, they are needed urgently for service so a trusted provider really will reduce the risks of a cock-up when to produce them in Britain would stretch our industry.

Replacements for the single hulled tankers, and the Argus and Dilligence if new build, should hopefully be from the UK though.

On the Argus she would be a legitimate target in wartime, and I imagine she was well protected for her Iraq deployment on that basis. The reality is though in the modern day that the major maritime threat comes from either pirates or USS Cole style terrorists, all who would be encouraged to attack a marked up hospital ship knowing its lack of defences. The real choice over her replacement would be I think whether or not to replace the ship one-for-one or to just go for a smaller casualty ship and place the aviation-capacity elsewhere, maybe in retaining the Ocean for a few more years until both carriers were available? Ideally I would see a replacement along the lines of one of these new small LHDs, maybe the one Singapore’s offering or the Dokdo, with boosted hospital facilities but with the capability to support amphibious operations which is one area where they found the Argus really was unsuited for leading to the order for the Mighty-O.

Diligence on the other hand I think will be dependent on how the Minehunting Capability is decided; whether to go for a corvette or just new MCMVs. Considering the important role she plays in that field it would probably be best to get any replacement accordingly.

Really though the essential nature of the RFA is understated by the political arm, otherwise the Argus replacement and the other tankers would have been put forth earlier.

 

[RobWilliams]

These MARS tankers are - IIRC - meant to replace our current single hulled tankers so the ship to home build them has sailed, pun completely intended.

Hopefully Argus + Diligence replacements will be through UK shipyards and considering they both appeared to be civilian ships then adopted into RFA service you'd hope that a purpose designed example would be more effective in their primary role + have an 'ok' secondary capability.

AFAIK HMS Ocean is due to end service in 2022 meaning for a golden ~4yrs technically we may have 2 QE and Ocean in service after 2018 if al goes to shedule.

Currently minehunting is going to stay as-is into the 2020s as work on the MHPC is going very slowly so chances are a Diligence replacement would come around before that.

 

[swerve]

... Ideally I would see a replacement along the lines of one of these new small LHDs, maybe the one Singapore’s offering or the Dokdo, ....

Dokdo isn't that small. About 5 metres shorter than HMS Ocean.

If you want smaller LHDs, as well as the Singapore Endurance 160, there's a smaller model of the Mistral class, Damen Schelde offer a range of Enforcer LHDs, TKMS has something similar, & IIRC so does Fincantieri.

 

[AndrewMI]

I thought the comments in this article were interesting. I know that he is the Chief of Defence Staff, but it is rare for an army man to single out the lack of RN escorts as (essentially) a capability shortfall.

BBC News - Defence chief Sir David Richards warns over MoD cuts

 

[RobWilliams]

In a job like the Chief of the Defence Staff where you're the most senior uniformed advisor to the Secretary of State for Defence you need to be able to think of the bigger strategic picture for the UK and not have your decisions influenced by whatever service you were a part of. He may be an "army guy", but his position requires him to reflect on the state of the British Armed Forces as a whole and as such means he doesn't resort to 'Army is the best, screw the RAF + RN' mentality' because he understands the most effective solution is for tri-service cooperation.

The analogy of a 3-legged stool doesn't seem inappropriate here IMO.

Can't remember who said it, but there's a saying that "The British Army is a projectile fired by the Royal Navy" and with the conflict in Afghanistan (a landlocked country) drawing down it's not unreasonable to assume that the RN may benefit from this as the country turns back to a more balanced Armed Forces rather than a primary focus on air/land operations.

 

[RobWilliams]

Bad news about Astute, if the article is true.

HMS Astute: nuclear submarine beset by design problems and construction failures - Telegraph

HMS Astute, the first of seven new submarines to be built at a cost of £9.75bn, is reportedly too slow, is subject to leaking and is rusty in parts.

The boat, lauded as the most sophisticated Navy submarine, cannot race to emergencies or away from an attack – considered an essential requirement – because it is unable to reach its intended top speed.

It also cannot maintain the more than 30 knot speed with the Navy new aircraft carriers, which the submarines protect, because of what sources described to The Guardian as a "V8 engine with a Morris Minor gearbox".

Other problems reported in recent months include flooding during a routine dive, corrosion in parts – despite being new – nuclear reaction monitoring instruments being the wrong type of lead and concerns the periscope is flawe.

Not good, not good at all.

Interesting bit of info though about it not being able to hold a 30 knot speed "with the Navy new aircraft carriers", generally we've heard 25kts and that's it so that's interesting.

Anyway, I just hope this article is over exaggerating a lot.

 

[Volkodav]

Bad news about Astute, if the article is true.

HMS Astute: nuclear submarine beset by design problems and construction failures - Telegraph



Not good, not good at all.

Interesting bit of info though about it not being able to hold a 30 knot speed "with the Navy new aircraft carriers", generally we've heard 25kts and that's it so that's interesting.

Anyway, I just hope this article is over exaggerating a lot.

No they have it all wrong, the Astute, like all other submarines that are not the RANs Collins Class are perfect and never have any performance, design or availability issues. In actual fact as they are not of the Collins class they have come in below budget, ahead of schedule and have performed above expectations.

Just ask the Australian media or any political hack you can find and they will tell you all about it.:daz

Basically many in the media are prats who don't really understand what they are writing, nor do they seem to care if it is accurate or not so long as it gets printed and gets the billd paid.

 

[StobieWan]

I suspect some degree of exaggeration given that the article is published in the Guardian and includes a quote from a long standing anti nuclear campaigner.


From the DMC newsfeed today

"The issues that have come to light during HMS Astute's sea trials are all being addressed as part of the trials programme. It is normal and expected for first of class trials to identify areas where modifications are required and these are then incorporated into later vessels of the class.

HMS Astute's trials, like all Royal Navy sea trials, have been designed to rigorously test all aspects of the submarine to meet the exacting standards required for operations. The Astute Class will be the most technologically-advanced submarines ever to serve with the Royal Navy and will provide an outstanding capability for decades to come.

The Guardian has made a number of separate claims about HMS Astute:

• that lead used for reactor instrumentation was not of sufficient quality. The lead used in certain components was examined after tests suggested its quality could affect the submarine's instruments. A full assessment concluded that the material has no effect on the accuracy of any readings and no impact on the submarine's operation.

• whether work had been done to rectify the incorrect installation of electronic switchboards. Work to rectify the incorrect installation of the switchboards has been completed and the boards conform to naval engineering standards.

• the flooding incident during trials. During trials last year HMS Astute experienced a leak which was immediately isolated and the submarine returned safely to the surface. An investigation found one small part which had not been made of the correct material had corroded. A replacement was fitted at sea and the submarine continued with her programme. BAE Systems has carried out a full assessment which concluded all similar parts were fitted correctly. The ingress of water was in the order of tens of litres.

• whether there was a propulsion problem affecting the speed of HMS Astute. The MOD does not discuss submarine propulsion or speeds.

• whether there were corrosion problems on HMS Astute and HMS Ambush. All Royal Navy submarines are subject to a continuous, thorough assessment of their components to minimise the risk of corrosion, and cosmetic problems with the paint finish inside HMS Astute and HMS Ambush have been identified and rectified.

Commander Ian Breckenridge, who was the Commanding Officer of HMS Astute between November 2010 and September 2012, said:

"Astute is the most capable submarine I have served in during my 25 years in service. She is a step forward from her predecessors but her new design and first of class status mean that during sea trials she must prove not only the build but also the design - hence sea trials take time. I spent almost 200 days at sea in Astute and no submariner would ever think of going to sea in anything other than a safe submarine.""

Defence Daily Update - 16 November 2012

 

[RobWilliams]

Very relieved to know it seems like a case of BSing reporters as usual. I'm more willing to believe what the MOD puts out than some half assed reporters stab at defence with an agenda.

News which isn't official from BAE/MOD/ACA but LB04 is now in dock thanks to a picture from a gent who's the other side of the Forth who get's these kind of shots. I've tried to emphasise LB04 but you can see the hangar entrance on the right - shows up as white as parts of the inner hangar area + edges of that opening are painted in a creamish colour rather than red primer.

EDIT: Yup, proper CCTV image of the dock here now

EDIT #2: Gunna link this CVF video again, pretty good for a quick fix in terms of what she'll look like when she's operating

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqKsJbObjYE"]Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StobieWan]

Very relieved to know it seems like a case of BSing reporters as usual. I'm more willing to believe what the MOD puts out than some half assed reporters stab at defence with an agenda.

Well, the Guardian reported that both carriers were being scrapped/sold off/traded out to India/mothballed, how many times ?

With a track record like that, I tend to keep a pinch of salt to hand when reading anything they report.

 

[Systems Adict]

More sabre rattling by a British press outlet who have nothing to fill their pages with....

BBC News - BAE Systems boss says shipyard may close

This was 'discussed' back in April / May this year......