The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

1805

New Member
I'd agree, in terms of historical links we are more common with NZ/Aus, but France has closer strategic needs to us. Which is what I did say

Indeed, it's not radical, but when you're talking about 4 countries crewing a ship with 1400 people, if one ducks out thats 25% of the crew unavailable be it as a stoker, deck handler or what. THAT is what I have issue with, NOT the concept of joint task groups.

Well judging by Bonzas comment, you can cound Aus out of any hypothetical arrangement. NZ probably too. So that's 2 countries who're unavailable in your plan.
Agreed it would not fly without full agreement and benefit of the parties. The US being key, and they have generally been supportive with working with partners.

I'm not saying it would work, but worth a try. Say POW was committed to East of Suez deployment with 80% RN ship crew 10% RNR (not sure if this is possible on current numbers either) and 10% allied crews. Core air group of 12-15 Merlin for AEW/ASW and 12 RN/USMC F35b with a mix of pilots. There could be space to flex up allied aircraft dependent of role.

These are all countries with a lot of experience of working together. Agreed we might not want to be involved, but generally providing offshore aviation facilities is very low risk, uncontroversial.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Biggest problem I've always seen in Coalition work is sharing of classified material.

Not just the FVEY markings for documents mind you, but the actual C4I networks. Surprising number of UK platforms I've worked with that didn't have CENTRIXS capability...and you guys actually work with us on a regular basis. Also not sure if all partner nation (NATO) crypto/EP standards would be on par with everybody else's...but I'm not that well versed on the Coalition side of that.

Maybe not that much of an issue for modern platforms, but still. Coalition maritime C4I for any warfare above MIW, COIN or HA/DR...my opinion only...would be an absolute cluster####.

SNGM doesn't really do a whole lot of high end maritime warfare work. We've proven much better on the land warfare side with ISAF, but the opposition there isn't exactly fast moving or high threat. And land systems are much easier to upgrade to new requirements than sea based ones.

As far as mixed crewing...you really think it would work on a meaningful scale? Presumably the Captain still makes the executive decisions, but what happens if there's a mixup and something breaks and the bill arrives? Which country pays that bill?
What happens if there's country specific tasking you want the platform to perform(SIGINT)? How much faith do you put in the vetting process of the other country's military member's clearances? And threat systems analysis is very high level stuff...I'm not sure the intel agencies from any country would be comfortable sharing those results...but then the tactics and measures of effectiveness all come from that knowledge.

Like any challenge, I'm sure it's all stuff that could be overcome, just not sure what you'd get in return would be worth the squeeze. And yeah, pretty much a non-issue for 95% of what navies are actually out doing these days. Problem is, some would say that navies exist for that 5% when the SHTF.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Agreed it would not fly without full agreement and benefit of the parties. The US being key, and they have generally been supportive with working with partners.

I'm not saying it would work, but worth a try. Say POW was committed to East of Suez deployment with 80% RN ship crew 10% RNR (not sure if this is possible on current numbers either) and 10% allied crews. Core air group of 12-15 Merlin for AEW/ASW and 12 RN/USMC F35b with a mix of pilots. There could be space to flex up allied aircraft dependent of role.

These are all countries with a lot of experience of working together. Agreed we might not want to be involved, but generally providing offshore aviation facilities is very low risk, uncontroversial.
It is controversial if the Government is seen to be providing aviation facilities for the benefit of SE Asian nations with the RN's requiremens being put on the back burner and having to pay for the privilage.

So now the crewing requirement is 80% RN, 10% RNR & 10% allied crews? That throws out one of your earlier plans about being able to cut costs of "50% plus" of aircraft and crew costs. The USN is very keen on working with partners, but you don't see them taking on hundreds of international crewman to help them crew their ships.

I don't think it would be worth a try, as an academic exercise then perhaps, but if we're putting notes down on the table then no way. I'd much rather invest that money back into Astutes.

My personal preference is this; the US is redeploying 60% of its assets in the Pacific, meaning it's ability to conduct operations in the Med/Gulf will be diminished (although - obviously - still massively powerful, hell look at Libya and the assets they deployed and people still considered them to be only partially involved) and it is up to Europe (i.e France/UK & Italy to an extent) to at least fill that gap in the region with their carriers.

As ASSAIL said earlier, the countries in the region are more than capable to maintain stability in the region. Once you rack up India, ROK, Japan and the US would a UK CBG prove vital? Helpful, sure, but i'm sure if the UK offered the US either the use of the RFTG or using the RFTG to fill in for a US CBG in the Med i'm sure they would pick the latter.
 
Last edited:

Fast Mover

New Member
Agreed it would not fly without full agreement and benefit of the parties. The US being key, and they have generally been supportive with working with partners.

I'm not saying it would work, but worth a try. Say POW was committed to East of Suez deployment with 80% RN ship crew 10% RNR (not sure if this is possible on current numbers either) and 10% allied crews. Core air group of 12-15 Merlin for AEW/ASW and 12 RN/USMC F35b with a mix of pilots. There could be space to flex up allied aircraft dependent of role.

These are all countries with a lot of experience of working together. Agreed we might not want to be involved, but generally providing offshore aviation facilities is very low risk, uncontroversial.
:rolleyes:

Sigh. We will be lucky to come out of the 2015 SDSR with a Royal Navy the size that it is now (if what has happened in ALL the previous defence reviews is anything to go by). In fact, it is not yet certain that PoW will ever enter service... the noises are promising I feel but set in stone... nope.

So the suggestion to purchase another vessel - or dedicate the only existing one - is a little, well, premature. Lets concentrate on whether we get two CVFs first. If we do get two CVFs then that is equivalent to having one available all of the time (two in an emergency perhaps). I doubt it will be dedicated to one corner of the globe, where nothing is actually happenening.

If 2015 heralds bucket loads more cash for the RN (brilliant) then where, out of a list including more escorts, SSNs, F-35s, further renewal of the RFA, CEC, more cruise missiles/new anti-ship missiles and some more personnel to operate any of the above, do you think another CVF to operate specially in the far east will come?

What are you going to fly from it? Some of our precious F-35Bs? Perhaps some friendly nations who are wondering what to do with all of the F-35Bs they have kicking around making the place look untidy will train their pilots to operate from another country's ship? Some helicopters then... because the RN has so many spare personnel and helos kicking around... oh no wait - we are going to struggle to crew the ships we are getting already that will be required for the standing tasks that the RN is already too small to service.

A bit of academic debate is very important, but if you want to jump head first in to complete and utter fantasy land then perhaps another thread is in order that can be dedicated to this and other such questions, rather than putting us all through this egregious discussion.

Just my two pence worth, but I do prefer real world or remotely possible scenarios :D
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sigh. We will be lucky to come out of the 2015 SDSR with a Royal Navy the size that it is now (if what has happened in ALL the previous defence reviews is anything to go by). In fact, it is not yet certain that PoW will ever enter service... the noises are promising I feel but set in stone... nope.
This is the optimistic bit of me kicking in, looking at the wars we've been involved in the last decade, the majority (Haven't forgotten the SKASaC cabs and the divers Ian! ;) ) of the RN hasn't had a look in in terms of ships and boats due to a mixture of the geographical nature of the place and the capabilities of the Navy, but if the ME swivel actually happens then things could be reasonably bright for the RN.

So the suggestion to purchase another vessel - or dedicate the only existing one - is a little, well, premature. Lets concentrate on whether we get two CVFs first. If we do get two CVFs then that is equivalent to having one available all of the time (two in an emergency perhaps). I doubt it will be dedicated to one corner of the globe, where nothing is actually happenening.
Indeed, Hammond has said in the past that given enough warning and prep time that the pair can be deployed at the same time. But that wanders into how much time is "enough"?

If 2015 heralds bucket loads more cash for the RN (brilliant) then where, out of a list including more escorts, SSNs, F-35s, further renewal of the RFA, CEC, more cruise missiles/new anti-ship missiles and some more personnel to operate any of the above, do you think another CVF to operate specially in the far east will come?
Must resist urge to list everything i'd like to spend money on . . . . .
 

t68

Well-Known Member
No offence taken at all, in fact I was just thinking the same thing about any supporting costs and assets expected to be provided by an Australian component. We're hard up paying for what we want/need as it is. A joint military asset of this kind is simply a terrible idea.
I agree with on this bonza. One only has to look at NATO and how disjointed it can be with ll the different competing interests, even Aus/NZ don't agree all the time. Idea sounds good in princeple but just unworkable not in this day and age not the 1930 anymore.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Good news, i've attached 3 pics of the Ambush/Diligence link up if anyone's interested. As much as her submarine role is mentioned in the article i'd put money on that her main reason for being sent there is to act as the mother to the MCM fleet with submarine operations very much being secondary.

T-boats haven't appeared to have much trouble operating in that region, but how about a submarine which is kinda new and might require this sort of asset in theatre because it's a new boat and could have troubles and require national technical support, of which the same class boat was brought alongside earlier and was down to have an ISD of spring this year *breathes in*. . . . . . Just sayin'. . . .

Anyway, the first steel for the Tide class tankers will be cut in 12 months time now that the final design had been completed.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8265

From the first steel being cut to launch will take each ship around ten months. After undergoing sea trials off the Korean peninsula, the ships will be brought to Britain where they’ll undergo ‘customisation’ – fitting classified and UK-only systems on board to support their mission alongside the RN.

Tidespring is due to be handed over to the MOD in October 2015, with the final vessel, Tideforce, completed in April 2017. All are expected to serve at least a quarter of a century.
10 months is pretty quick, the MOD got it right with this class of ship.
 

Anixtu

New Member
As much as her submarine role is mentioned in the article i'd put money on that her main reason for being sent there is to act as the mother to the MCM fleet with submarine operations very much being secondary.
I'll take your money.

Diligence used to split her time between MCM support and SSN support, but the Bays have now quite firmly taken over MCM support, and they are better at it than Diligence, with greater magazine, fuel and fresh water capacity, greater ability to act as a command platform, better facilities to support embarked personnel, a more useful flight deck (and dock) for co-operating with coalition MCM units (think USN MCM helos), etc.

They can't compete on the SSN role though, Diligence can do things in that line that I don't think the Bays will ever be capable of.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I wasn't talking about operationally which she was better at, because the differences between the two in the roles are known. What I was talking about was the reasoning about the deployment rather than what the ships can do respectively.

But yeah, Diligence spends a big chunk of it's time in the Gulf so this deployment isn't anything new & Cardigan Bay is in for routine maintenance so probably won't spend a whole lot of time out.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Anyway, the first steel for the Tide class tankers will be cut in 12 months time now that the final design had been completed.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8265



10 months is pretty quick, the MOD got it right with this class of ship.

Yes, 10mth build time is pretty amazing, especially for ships of that size too, starting the first ship mid 2014 and delivering the 4th and final ship in April 2017.

I wonder what the build time for the class would have been if built in the UK?

The BMT / DSME team also won the contract for a similar, but smaller, ship for Norway to be delivered in October 2016 and they are also putting a design up for the RAN too, be interesting to see how they go in that contest too.

The DSME yard must be a sight to see, producing around 70 ships a year.
 
Last edited:

Anixtu

New Member
I wonder what the build time for the class would have been if built in the UK?
DSME wanted to build all four at once for near simultaneous delivery. MoD declined, and has probably paid extra for the staggered deliveries, because it wouldn't have suited the RFA to receive all four in short order whilst the ships they are replacing are still in service.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
DSME wanted to build all four at once for near simultaneous delivery. MoD declined, and has probably paid extra for the staggered deliveries, because it wouldn't have suited the RFA to receive all four in short order whilst the ships they are replacing are still in service.
Yes I could imagine that DSME would have the capacity to build all four at the same time, especially when they can produce 70 ships in one year, still interested to know what the approx build time may have been if done in the UK.

There's probably a lot of other reasons why you wouldn't want them all delivered at once, especially being a new class too, there's bound to be some small bugs that will come with first of class, no matter how well the design process or build process is.

Another is probably money, rather than having to find half a Billion Pounds in one year, the payments can be spread out over 4 years or so.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, Wave Knight took about two years or just under from being laid down to launch, Wave Ruler about half that time so I guess if we'd had them in serial production in the same yard, we probably could have gotten close to that if the space had been available in the timescale required.

Cost wise, I suppose they'd have been a bit tougher: )
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Apologies for getting off topic but since the questions are RN related, I thought it would be best to ask the questions here, rather than open a new thread.

1. The Ham class was designed as an inshore minesweeper and the Ton class was a coastal minesweeper. What made the Ton class more suitable for coastal [deeper water work] compared to the Ham, was it the larger hull or a hull that offered better seakeepng?

2. When both classes entered service in the late 1950's, what equipment was fitted on board to detect moored mines and bottom laid mines? Were minehunting sonars already invented then?

3. What is the difference between a 'minesweeper' and a 'minehunter'? Wouldn't a minesweeper also be fitted with sonar to detect mines - making it in theory, also a 'minehunter'?

4. What does the term 'Mine Counter Measures Vessel' [MCMV] imply? That a vessel is both a 'minesweeper' and a 'minehunter'?

5. Are 'opresa' and 'paravane' [a towed object to maintain the depth of the sweep and to keep it from sinking] terms for the same thing? I've been told that 'opresa' is an RN term.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
3. What is the difference between a 'minesweeper' and a 'minehunter'? Wouldn't a minesweeper also be fitted with sonar to detect mines - making it in theory, also a 'minehunter'?
My basic understanding - so watch out - is that generally a minesweeper doesn't neccesarily detect mines, it employs technology and tactics to detonate mines which may be in the area using things like wired sweeps for moored mines and other sweeps like acoustic, pressure and magnetic sweeps to try detonate those types of mines. In effect it may have a rough idea to the location of a minefield, and it'll destroy them using various techniques from a safe distance but they don't detect individual mines with sonar.

A minehunter on the other hand will first detect a mine, examine the type and then detonate it using a remotely controlled vehicle one at a time in a very precise and controlled manner.

Overall it appears the optimal method (if we're talking about plenty of mines laid out at sea, choke points not so much due to their size) of mine clearance would be a minesweeper goes through to detonate the vast majority of mines and then minehunters follow and mop up the stragglers.

4. What does the term 'Mine Counter Measures Vessel' [MCMV] imply? That a vessel is both a 'minesweeper' and a 'minehunter'?
Typically MCMV includes all variations of minesweeper/minehunter. If it's primary job is to detect/destroy mines than it's counted as a MCMV, think of minesweepers and minehunters as sub groups to the MCMV type vessel.

Hopefully if correction is needed, people can correct me.

EDIT: Here's a really good doc about this type of thing, read the Target Emulation Mode Sweeps for minesweeping stuff

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-03/minesweeping-mine-hunting-success
 

colay

New Member
Here's how the Navy characterizes minehunting and minesweeping.

www.navy.mil/n85/miw_primer-june2009.pdf
21ST CENTURY U.S. NAVY MINE WARFARE

HUNT IF YOU CAN...SWEEP IF YOU MUST

Mine hunting provides a relatively high degree of certainty that an area of concern is mine-free or the risk of a mine strike has been minimized. It comprises five steps: detection, classification, localization, identification, and neutralization. Sonars are the primary means to detect and classify mine-like contacts. Identifying each contact as a mine or a “NOMBO” (Non-Mine/Mine-Like Bottom Object) can also be carried out by EOD divers and the Navy’s marine mammal systems, video cameras on mine neutralization vehicles, and laser systems. In this regard, advanced sonars on unmanned underwater vehicles offer good promise to enhance mine-hunting capabilities

A contact that is classified as mine-like must be identified as a mine or NOMBO and, if a mine, rendered safe before the Navy mine coun-termeasures commander, or the Coast Guard in a domestic mine crisis, can declare a route or area cleared. (As the Lead Federal Agency for maritime homeland security, the Coast Guard’s Captains of the Port are the only officials who can close and open U.S. ports in response to an emergency.) Depending on the accuracy of the location of the contact, the characteristics of the bottom (e.g., smooth or rough), sediment type, amount of clutter, and the depth of the water, among other factors, the process of reacquisition and identification of each mine-like contact can take several hours. EOD divers, marine mammals, and mine-neutralization systems are the Navy’s primary means for neutral-izing sea mines and underwater IEDs.

The two types of minesweeping are mechanical and influence systems. Mechanical sweeping consists of cutting the tether of mines moored in the water volume or other means of physically damaging the mine, such as chain drags to cut control wires. Moored mines cut loose by mechanical sweeping must then be neutralized or rendered safe for subsequent analysis. Influence minesweeping consists of simulating the magnetic, electric, acoustic, seismic, or pressure signatures of a ship so that the mine fires.

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of an adversary’s mining objectives and tactics are extremely important when influence sweep-ing, as is specific intelligence on the operation of a mine’s sensors, firing criteria, and any counter-countermeasures (e.g. ship counters and delay arming). Minesweeping is more risky to the sweeping platform than mine hunting and, when completed, generally leaves behind a higher residual risk to vessels that transit the swept area. To ensure as low a risk as possible, then, most mine countermeasures operational plans include both mine hunting and minesweeping
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Excellent, so what I said - by and large and in much less detail - seems about right.

In a RN context we currently only operate minehunters (8 Hunt class & 7 Sandown class), the role which will in the future be rolled into the MHPC program.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the input guys.

Would it technically wrong to decribe the RNs Hunt and Sandown class - as MCMVs,
despite the RNs official designation of these vessels as 'minehunters'?

Also, I was on board a frigate last week and on the bridge, I was surprised to see a control panel for a degaussing system. Is it common for combatants to be fitted with degaussing systems?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
No not at all, the RN flips between the designations of MCMV and minehunter because in a RN context it's irrelevant as they only operate minehunters.

Like I said, best way to think about it would be to consider a vessel whose job is to counter the mine threat as MCMV, MCMV's being made up of 2 subclasses; minehunters and minesweepers.

Think of it the same way you think of amphibious vessels, LHDs, LPHs and the like are all classed as amphibious vessels so calling them such isn't technically incorrect. It's the same with minehunters/MCMV.
 
Top