The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Yup, 617 are the first (operational) squadron to get the F-35B's and while there are indications about that it could be jointly manned, you can be sure that 617 aircraft will only have RAF markings.

WRT the squadron number, the following should be read

There will also be another squadron flying Lightning II jets. It will carry a Royal Navy squadron number but have personnel from both services.

The reason why 617 will have naval aviators is that come 2018 when we do JSF trials on the QEC we probably (not sure on dates) won't have a fully formed second squadron so 617 for practical reasons would have naval aviators aboard for the trials.

Keel laid for the 6th Astute class submarine is laid (HMS Agamemnon) and HMS Astute and HMS Ambush have both almost completed their RN sea trials and are close to entering frontline service. Although Astute was meant to be in the spring, but that's first in class for you, compare it to the speed of Ambush's progress.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sixth-astute-class-submarine-keel-laid

EDIT: according to Shepard Media, Astute is now ready for operations, but i'd be more confident with the link from HMG saying that being declared operational is close rather than completed.

UK Astute submarine finally ready for operations - News - Shephard

It's good to know some kind of date for HMS Artful, she's due to be launched later this year and commissioned in 2015.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8395

Some dates to bear in mind, HMS Astute will deploy operationally later this year with HMS Ambush in early 2014.

• HMS Artful ISD: 2015
• HMS Audacious ISD: 2018
• HMS Anson ISD: 2020
• Boat 7 (HMS Ajax) ISD: 2024

 

[deepsixteen]

Yup, 617 are the first (operational) squadron to get the F-35B's and while there are indications about that it could be jointly manned, you can be sure that 617 aircraft will only have RAF markings.

WRT the squadron number, the following should be read



The reason why 617 will have naval aviators is that come 2018 when we do JSF trials on the QEC we probably (not sure on dates) won't have a fully formed second squadron so 617 for practical reasons would have naval aviators aboard for the trials.

Keel laid for the 6th Astute class submarine is laid (HMS Agamemnon) and HMS Astute and HMS Ambush have both almost completed their RN sea trials and are close to entering frontline service. Although Astute was meant to be in the spring, but that's first in class for you, compare it to the speed of Ambush's progress.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sixth-astute-class-submarine-keel-laid

Hi

Reasonably good news particularly Simon Lister's view that Barrow is back on form as a SM builder.

Seem's a given that 617 will have FAA pilots mod site quotes ACM Dalton

"In a speech to senior representatives of air forces from around the world, Sir Stephen explained that 617 Squadron, known as the ‘Dambusters’, are to disband on 1 April 2014 as part of the planned drawdown of the Tornado GR4 Force. The squadron will then reform in 2016 with both RAF and Royal Navy personnel and take delivery of the highly advanced Lightning II.

The next Lightning II squadron to stand up will carry a Royal Navy squadron number but be similarly jointly manned."

I hope its more JHC than JFH.:fly

Deepsixteen

 

[StobieWan]

Yup, 617 are the first (operational) squadron to get the F-35B's and while there are indications about that it could be jointly manned, you can be sure that 617 aircraft will only have RAF markings.

WRT the squadron number, the following should be read



The reason why 617 will have naval aviators is that come 2018 when we do JSF trials on the QEC we probably (not sure on dates) won't have a fully formed second squadron so 617 for practical reasons would have naval aviators aboard for the trials.

Keel laid for the 6th Astute class submarine is laid (HMS Agamemnon) and HMS Astute and HMS Ambush have both almost completed their RN sea trials and are close to entering frontline service. Although Astute was meant to be in the spring, but that's first in class for you, compare it to the speed of Ambush's progress.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sixth-astute-class-submarine-keel-laid

EDIT: according to Shepard Media, Astute is now ready for operations, but i'd be more confident with the link from HMG saying that being declared operational is close rather than completed.

UK Astute submarine finally ready for operations - News - Shephard

It's good to know some kind of date for HMS Artful, she's due to be launched later this year and commissioned in 2015.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/8395

Some dates to bear in mind, HMS Astute will deploy operationally later this year with HMS Ambush in early 2014.

• HMS Artful ISD: 2015
• HMS Audacious ISD: 2018
• HMS Anson ISD: 2020
• Boat 7 (HMS Ajax) ISD: 2024

Damn, give them an eighth boat f'r'chrissakes

Seriously, that yard just begs for another one being slid into the mix. :sigh:

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd bloody love an 8th boat, IIRC the costs attached would be reasonable.

But even without that, AFAIK the construction cycles seem reasonably in sync. Astute was some 6 years from being laid down/launch (Ambush was just over 7) and considering the ISD of the first successor is 2028 then there should be a reasonable overlap between the back end of the last Astute and the first successor.

 

[1805]

Nuclear boats are never going to be cheap but we have incurred extra cost by having a stop/start approach to construction. Now we seem to have got it right (the ISD Rob quotes are pretty much 4 over a decade), it seems unwise to run the risk of any breaks. We should aim for a drum beat of 4 a decade (assuming a fleet of 12 boats (8 SSN & 4 SSBN), with logical design improvements, creating subclass in planned timeframes, avoiding 100% new designs.

If we do this I think we could comfortably take out 10-15% of the cost (which could cover the cost of a 8th or 9th SSN depending on whether we had 3 or 4 SSBN).

The cost variants of the options quoted in the white paper are actually quite small when you look at the timescales, and could easily be lost.

I could see advantages of an extra SSN over a fourth SSBN, but then would we end up with the need for additional SLBM tubes and a bigger boat alone the lines of the original Vs, than the planned reduction on successor? Numbers maybe more important; BMD might be still in its infancy, but over the lifetime of these boat....out to 2065?

 

[harryriedl]

Hi

Reasonably good news particularly Simon Lister's view that Barrow is back on form as a SM builder.

Seem's a given that 617 will have FAA pilots mod site quotes ACM Dalton

"In a speech to senior representatives of air forces from around the world, Sir Stephen explained that 617 Squadron, known as the ‘Dambusters’, are to disband on 1 April 2014 as part of the planned drawdown of the Tornado GR4 Force. The squadron will then reform in 2016 with both RAF and Royal Navy personnel and take delivery of the highly advanced Lightning II.

The next Lightning II squadron to stand up will carry a Royal Navy squadron number but be similarly jointly manned."

I hope its more JHC than JFH.:fly

Deepsixteen

in they mention a naval squadron would it most likely be 800 or 801 or a long disbanded squadron

 

[kev 99]

Damn, give them an eighth boat f'r'chrissakes

Seriously, that yard just begs for another one being slid into the mix. :sigh:

Cough* Achilles* Cough, Cough.....

 

[RobWilliams]

I could see advantages of an extra SSN over a fourth SSBN, but then would we end up with the need for additional SLBM tubes and a bigger boat alone the lines of the original Vs, than the planned reduction on successor? Numbers maybe more important; BMD might be still in its infancy, but over the lifetime of these boat....out to 2065?

I'd imagine with a three boat class the problem would be availability so more SLBM tubes doesn't really seem to improve that. A larger boat would - i imagine - be able to sustain longer deployments with more room for food and the like, but the problem would be crew endurance. As we know, SSNs get over this by rotating crews out while deployed but SSBNs wouldn't really be able to do that.

So i'd put a no on more SLBM tubes, the boat could still end up the size of the Vanguards anyway, and i'd definitely say it's more about the number of boats than the boats themselves (apart from the obvious things like SLBMs) that gives us CASD.

 

[StobieWan]

We're already sending boats out with less than a full load of MIRV's - if you want to up the threat element, you can just stuff all the MIRV's in there that'll fit.

 

[Seaforth]

Queen Elizabeth ramp install started

First aircraft launch ramp now on the deck, 3 months early:
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Files/A/Aircraft-Carrier-Alliance/2013-weekly-comms/190713.pdf

The progress of this innovative ship is stunning, and it sets the benchmark for aircraft carrier D&C.

 

[Volkodav]

First aircraft launch ramp now on the deck, 3 months early:
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Files/A/Aircraft-Carrier-Alliance/2013-weekly-comms/190713.pdf

The progress of this innovative ship is stunning, and it sets the benchmark for aircraft carrier D&C.

Too bad there are only two of them and that none of the navies who should be looking at them appear to be interested in acquiring a pair for themselves. I could be wrong but India probably could have ordered a pair of them and had them in service with less delay, pain and wasted money than they are experiencing with their current two projects. I wont go down the RAN track either as it makes me too sad.

 

[RobWilliams]

Indias carrier procurement has been all over the shop IMO, with such big ticket items it should have been handled better.

I'm pretty unhappy with the fact that France dropped it's PA-2 plans + 4th Mistral (I get that it was unlikely before this White Paper, but that was the final straw). That'd have been a pretty decent capability for quite a reasonable price i'd imagine and it'd maintain the sort of punch a future Joint Expeditionary Force with Fr/UK assets would produce when CdG goes in for refuelling.

I'm gunna go ahead and read the hypothetical carrier for the RAN thread again.

 

[StobieWan]

Too bad there are only two of them and that none of the navies who should be looking at them appear to be interested in acquiring a pair for themselves. I could be wrong but India probably could have ordered a pair of them and had them in service with less delay, pain and wasted money than they are experiencing with their current two projects. I wont go down the RAN track either as it makes me too sad.

I can't understand what the thinking was in buying into a derelict Russian carrier with so many potential pitfalls. They would certainly have done better to have selected an international partner with relevant skills - the UK might have looked like a long shot at the time as we'd not cut steel on the CVF's but today, right now, they could do worse.

 

[harryriedl]

I can't understand what the thinking was in buying into a derelict Russian carrier with so many potential pitfalls. They would certainly have done better to have selected an international partner with relevant skills - the UK might have looked like a long shot at the time as we'd not cut steel on the CVF's but today, right now, they could do worse.

Bribery has to be considered as a factor(DID mentioned it a while back). because it was such an unsuitable ship for India need as has become so expensive and its such a bad design for an aircraft carrier(lifts, Island space) and it got a fire prone main power plant I feel the russians could have only shifted it with money and idiocy on Indians behalf

 

[Volkodav]

Bribery has to be considered as a factor(DID mentioned it a while back). because it was such an unsuitable ship for India need as has become so expensive and its such a bad design for an aircraft carrier(lifts, Island space) and it got a fire prone main power plant I feel the russians could have only shifted it with money and idiocy on Indians behalf

Just too bad the UK never managed to build any of their Hermes / Victorious sized carrier designs during the 50s or 60s. They would have been ideal replacements for the Colossus and Majestic CVLs in Commonwealth and international service and kept a number of navies (affordably) in the carrier game and ready to be replaced by QEs today.

Damn I just woke up

 

[kev 99]

Bribery has to be considered as a factor(DID mentioned it a while back). because it was such an unsuitable ship for India need as has become so expensive and its such a bad design for an aircraft carrier(lifts, Island space) and it got a fire prone main power plant I feel the russians could have only shifted it with money and idiocy on Indians behalf

They were offered a deal that was literally 'too good to be true': a carrier for just the cost of modification that turned out to be a very large rebuild.

 

[StobieWan]

What's the Russian for "moneypit" ? Still, just as well they did, or I s'pect the ConDems would have flogged both carriers right off the slips to the Indians

 

[AegisFC]

I can't understand what the thinking was in buying into a derelict Russian carrier with so many potential pitfalls. They would certainly have done better to have selected an international partner with relevant skills - the UK might have looked like a long shot at the time as we'd not cut steel on the CVF's but today, right now, they could do worse.

You really need to look at that deal in the context of which it was made. At the time no one else had anything close to what the Russians offered in both cost and time frame and also India was still buying most of its big ticket items from Russia. Not much consideration was given to anyone else.

Even those who predicted a train wreck when the deal was announced were amazed at just how bad the train wreck was and how entertaining of a wreck it has been over the years. For one no one expected for the yard doing the refit to not have the plans for the ship.

They were offered a deal that was literally 'too good to be true': a carrier for just the cost of modification that turned out to be a very large rebuild.

The cost of modifications and the MiG-29's. Handing over a ship for cost of a refit in the former owners country is a popular option for second hand ships. The US does it on a regular basis, however usually the refits are not so...extensive.

 

[swerve]

A stretched Cavour built in Italy (perhaps with fitting out in India) could have been done faster & probably cheaper than what eventuated, but not faster & certainly not cheaper than what Russia promised.

 

[StobieWan]

Even those who predicted a train wreck when the deal was announced were amazed at just how bad the train wreck was and how entertaining of a wreck it has been over the years. For one no one expected for the yard doing the refit to not have the plans for the ship.

Indeed - but the yard that built the ship landed up in another country from the refit yard so that might have been forseeable.

It's been a fairly horrible train wreck and I wonder how much of that experience is useful in being transferable to anything else. As you say, at the time the deal was struck, there wasn't anything else on the cards that looked attractive.

Interestingly, Gorshkov was orginally named Baku and of course, Baku also happens to be a word in Japanese for a creature of myth that devours dreams

If they have just a few more snags, they'll beat the refit on the Victorious