The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Crowsnest - bloody ridiculous. Just tell Thales the deal's theirs if the price is right. We already own the kit, it's relatively new, & an update of it should be the quickest, cheapest, lowest-risk option, & good enough.

Ten years ahead we can be looking at a replacement, at leisure, with no time pressures or worries about gapping.

 

[StobieWan]

Damn straight. Get it working in Merlin, heave a sigh of relief, pats on backs all around, job's a good 'un. Put any savings towards CEC. As you say, ten years from now, have another look with more modern technology.

"Dear Thales, don't take the p1ss and you're in, love, HMG"

 

[RobWilliams]

Indeed, the whole thing comes down to what exact capabilities are we looking for our future AEW? If it's just detection, then Searchwater should be perfectly fine, at least we're led to believe it's currently a capable radar both above water or land.

Their thinking is that the core of the air group - the F35B - won't officially be operationally deployable on the carriers before 2020 so what does it matter if other elements officially aren't either?

It's crap, of course. Like you say ~a decade after we hit 2020 we're going to be looking for a Merlin replacement.

One hopeful aspect though is that currently i think we've got 12 Sea King ASaC, hopefully with the reduction of 8 + 2 they can't be pinched to be used over land.

 

[StobieWan]

Indeed, the whole thing comes down to what exact capabilities are we looking for our future AEW? If it's just detection, then Searchwater should be perfectly fine, at least we're led to believe it's currently a capable radar both above water or land.

Their thinking is that the core of the air group - the F35B - won't officially be operationally deployable on the carriers before 2020 so what does it matter if other elements officially aren't either?

It's crap, of course. Like you say ~a decade after we hit 2020 we're going to be looking for a Merlin replacement.

One hopeful aspect though is that currently i think we've got 12 Sea King ASaC, hopefully with the reduction of 8 + 2 they can't be pinched to be used over land.

And where have the bag draggers been for the last several years? 'Ghan...

 

[RobWilliams]

That's what I mean, as the numbers are going down i'd be rather keen for them to stick to being Navy assets. But considering we're getting closer to 2014 this probably won't be a problem in the future.

 

[harryriedl]

Seen on the RN page 809NAS is the next lightning squadron no real surprise but good news never the less
Immortal air squadron to fly Royal Navy
809 Naval Air Squadron (NAS), whose motto is simply ‘Immortal’, is to be reformed to operate the stealth fifth generation aircraft that will fly off the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth Class carriers from 2018.

The Lightning II aircraft will be jointly operated by pilots from the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force. Earlier this year, it was announced by the Chief of the Air Staff that the famous 617 Dambusters Squadron would be the first RAF Squadron to fly the jets. Both Royal Navy and RAF pilots are already training on the Lightning II aircraft alongside the US Marine Corps at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

809 Naval Air Squadron, which dates back to the Second World War, has been selected by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir George Zambellas because of its history of striking at the enemy in operations across the globe.

In previous incarnations, aircraft from 809 supported an attack on Hitler’s flagship, supported the invasions of North Africa, Italy and southern France during World War 2 and saw action in the Suez in 1956.

It was last re-formed to support operations in the Falklands, flying off the decks of HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. 809 also flew the Navy’s last Buccaneer, a low level strike bomber flown in the 1960s and 1970s.

First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir George Zambellas said:

“I am delighted to announce that the name of the second Lightning II squadron, when it forms, will be 809 Naval Air Squadron. This squadron number is chosen to link with and reflect the proud and distinguished history of embarked carrier strike, from the Second World War to the Falklands.

“The early naming of 809 alongside the RAF’s 617 ‘Dambusters’ Squadron is a very visible demonstration of a joint ambition, spirit of collaboration and shared equity in the Joint Lightning Force.”

When not at sea as part of the UK’s carrier strike force, 809 will be based at RAF Marham in Norfolk. The joint nature of the Squadrons means Naval personnel will serve with The Dambusters and their Air Force counterparts will do likewise on 809 NAS.

 

[RobWilliams]

Excellent news, there was a bit of a to-do on another forum about certain people who would be the people 'in the know' saying that 809 NAS would be the OCU but this has been released to not be the case. It's a proper frontline squadron.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-air-squadron-reformed-to-fly-new-jets

The usual suspects would have been 800 NAS or 801 NAS but I like the choice of 809, good history.

It should be noted that the plan is to have naval aviators in both 809 NAS and 617 Squadron, therefore indicating that both squadrons are expected to be capable of being put to sea. Meaning that there is the scope for having 24 F-35B deployed on the QEC. Sure, it's not 36, but 24 is perfectly adequate for the vast majority of the scenarios we would get into.

 

[harryriedl]

Excellent news, there was a bit of a to-do on another forum about certain people who would be the people 'in the know' saying that 809 NAS would be the OCU but this has been released to not be the case. It's a proper frontline squadron.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-air-squadron-reformed-to-fly-new-jets

The usual suspects would have been 800 NAS or 801 NAS but I like the choice of 809, good history.

It should be noted that the plan is to have naval aviators in both 809 NAS and 617 Squadron, therefore indicating that both squadrons are expected to be capable of being put to sea. Meaning that there is the scope for having 24 F-35B deployed on the QEC. Sure, it's not 36, but 24 is perfectly adequate for the vast majority of the scenarios we would get into.

with the usage of the OCU squadron you do bump it up to 36 (under the assumption that the OCU is 12 aircraft fleet) admittedly that would be a Falkland II or similarly dire scenario

 

[RobWilliams]

IIRC the OCU isn't a combat squadron, it's just for turning people into F-35 pilots and sending them off to frontline squadrons. So we can't make the assumption we can pack that 12 strong squadron off to fight a war because it's just not got the pilots to do so. Things would probably have to be really really REALLY bad if we start sending up unqualified boys in their cabs, like "they're marching on Buckingham Palace" bad.

But, I do recall reading that there are generally more pilots than aircraft in a frontline squadron. So there could be the potential to borrow the majority of the aircraft plus the excess pilots and expand the existing squadrons perhaps.

All supposition of course, I don't really know. But if we were in a balls-to-the-wall situation and in one location we have airframes which are combat capable and an excess of pilots in another I would imagine we would make something out of them.

 

[RobWilliams]

Type 26 model updates at DESI 2013

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1228

Most obvious difference that i've spotted is that the aft CAMM silos which were in the same structure as the funnel has moved a smidge further aft into 4 sets of 6x1 cells rather than 1 set of 12x2 cells. Same number just different arrangement.

The mast looks really tall, like REALLY tall. Good sized flight deck emphasised by a scale model of a Chinook.

More details soo, but she looks great IMO.

 

[kev 99]

Nice find Rob, photos could do without all the moody lighting though.

Yes it does look like a pretty smart ship.

 

[StobieWan]

F*ck me but that mast looks tall ! I note the model looks like the CGI in that the gun looks like a 57mm

Huge flight deck - you could do an SRVL on that deck with an F35B - but no signs of the mission bay to the stern?

 

[RobWilliams]

Cheers kev

@Ian

The stern mission bay was ditched a while back (somewhen in 2012), it's been changed into a larger "mission area" in the superstructure. Basically the same thing the Type 45 does to launch RHIBs, lower them over the side with a big grabber. IIRC she can be mobile and retrieve the RHIBs.

But the "mission area" is down to be able to hold UUVs, USVs or UAVs. So in a practical aspect think storing the gear used to launch/recover Scan Eagle, that type of thing. Although I will add that I know the recent ScanEagle contract - AFAIK - doesn't involve frigates, but it's good to know the space is set aside.

The turret looks more like the Oto 127/64 than what we've seen in the past, which is good.

The ultimate kick in the balls is the strike length silos, if you look at the first picture from the front, the strike cells are the ones just in front of the superstructure. They are 8 cells long and probably two deep, they usually are, meaning a drop from 24 to 16 strike length cells.

Fuming, the best part of it has been cut from what I can see. It used to be 12 x 2, now it's 8 x 2.

CAMM production kickstarted however, need to keep the Type 23 relevant into the 2030's so glad it's finally started

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-missile-contract-sustains-500-uk-jobs

Bloomberg reports very good export interest in the Type 26

BAE Systems New Global Combat Ship Draws Export Buyer Interest - Bloomberg

Eight countries are considering the purchase of BAE Systems Plc (BA/) Type 26 Global Combat Ships, including an air-defense variant the U.K. isn’t currently planning to acquire.

...

In addition to the general-purpose and anti-ship warfare versions, at least one export buyer is considering an air-defense variant of the Type 26 that isn’t in the U.K. plan. In the long term, such a ship could serve as a replacement for Britain’s Type 45 destroyers, Braham said.

Blatantly it's Brazil looking for the AAW variant, but it's REALLY interesting that 8 countries are interested in the ship.

 

[swerve]

Dunno about the gun. It doesn't look like a 57mm mount to me. But nor does it look quite the same as any of the other likely gun mounts I can think of, & I've been looking at pictures to confirm that.

127/64 is about the nearest, though.

 

[RobWilliams]

Mehhh i'm not concerned about it, it's been said before that they want a 'medium calibre gun' and a 57 isn't close to that. I'm confident it'll be a 127mm just a case of either BAE or Oto Melara, i'm rooting for the Oto.

 

[StobieWan]

Oh, the gun will be a 127mm, I'm just commenting that some parts of the model are a bit screwy so the overall proportions may not be totally exactly right.

The 1B's look a bit big for instance - that sort of thing is a general indication that the model may be a "hey, we guessed some stuff, sue me" territory.

The strike length cells may be a "very easily changed" value so I'm not going to panic yet. Give me say, ten minutes...

 

[RobWilliams]

True, true. But if there was a proposed AWD variant then a nice high mast as standard would be a good thing to put in. There will always be room for tweaks, the final design won't be released until 2015 IIRC so until then.

 

[Volkodav]

True, true. But if there was a proposed AWD variant then a nice high mast as standard would be a good thing to put in. There will always be room for tweaks, the final design won't be released until 2015 IIRC so until then.

Love the look of the BMT patrol vessel / patrol frigate concept, looks like a mini Type 26. Can't wait for more details to come out on it and can see it potentially becoming a better export proposition than the Type 26. Would there be a place for it in the RN in its OPV variation?

 

[John Newman]

Type 26 model updates at DESI 2013

DSEI 2013 pictures photos images video International Maritime Defence Show Naval exhibition Excel London UK defence industry military maritime security naval technology navy

Most obvious difference that i've spotted is that the aft CAMM silos which were in the same structure as the funnel has moved a smidge further aft into 4 sets of 6x1 cells rather than 1 set of 12x2 cells. Same number just different arrangement.

The mast looks really tall, like REALLY tall. Good sized flight deck emphasised by a scale model of a Chinook.

More details soo, but she looks great IMO.

Hi Rob,

Thanks for putting up the photos of the latest model of the T26, it's certainly interesting to see the evolution of this ship (pity the 'mood' lighting and height of the bow photo both makes it a bit difficult to see clearly!).

For ease of comparison, below are a number of links to some of the versions that I've seen over the last few years.

2013 Model (Rob's latest link):
DSEI 2013 pictures photos images video International Maritime Defence Show Naval exhibition Excel London UK defence industry military maritime security naval technology navy

2012 Model:
Q&A with BAE Systems on Type 26 Frigate Design Update at Euronaval 2012

2011 Model:
New Frigates for the Royal Navy - Type 26 - Page 12

The 2012 model was certain a major change from the 2011 model, but the new 2013 model appears to be more of a refinement of the 2012 model rather than a major change to the overall design concept.

Looking at the three models, some of the big changes from the 2011 model and the two latest models appears to be:
* Removal of the mission bay and doors at the stern.
* Removal of the smaller hanger door for a UAV
* Enclosing the openings for the RHIB's
* Removal of the Harpoon canisters (has a Harpoon capability been deleted??)

The other interesting point you made (in another post) was to do with the VLS position changes forward of the bridge between the 2012 and the 2013 models.

Looking at the 2012 model it clearly shows a total of 48 VLS tubes ahead of the bridge (24 appear to strike length), the photo of the new 2013 model (not taken high enough) it's not clear from the photo if it is the same configuration or as you also suggested, but it does appear to be a reduction in the 24 strike length to 16).

I suppose that has been offset by also having the 24 VLS tubes at the back of the funnel. I won't go into the other changes you have also mentioned such as what appears to be a much taller mast, etc.


The thing that particularly interests me (once the overall design is settled) is what will an 'Australianised' version of the T26 possibly look like?

Just my personal opinion, but I could imagine an RAN version of the T26 might have:

* The same 5" gun as on the AWD's.
* A 48 cell strike length Mk41 VLS system ahead of the bridge, same as the AWD's (is the T26 design flexible enough or capable to allow for that?). I would imagine that an RAN version would want to allow for the possible inclusion of SM-2 or SM-6, the proposed Tomahawk missiles and possibly in the future the LRASM-A from the MK41's too.
* Replacement of the RN version's 24 VLS cells behind the funnel with an 8 or 16 cell MK41 VLS for quad pack ESSM
* CEFAR and CEAMOUNT on the mast (as is being applied to the upgraded ANZAC's)
* 2 x quad pack Harpoon canisters (it appears that in the latest two models of the T26 the design doesn't appear to include Harpoon), is there space for Harpoon in the current design?

The other thing is the size of the flight deck, I can't imagine that the RAN would be looking at operating CH-47's off their version (if selected for the Future Frigate), would it matter? Probably not, but would it be possible if not needed, to extend the length of the hangar to allow for 2 MH-60R's and possibly a UAV too.

Yes, all of the above is speculation on my part of what an RAN version might look like, but as you said 8 other nations are looking at the T26, so I suppose there must certainly be a number of different versions and configurations being created by the designers.

Interested in your thoughts.

Cheers

 

[RobWilliams]

Love the look of the BMT patrol vessel / patrol frigate concept, looks like a mini Type 26. Can't wait for more details to come out on it and can see it potentially becoming a better export proposition than the Type 26. Would there be a place for it in the RN in its OPV variation?

The vessel it sounds like you're talking about is BMT's Venator, is that right?

BMT Venator - Minor Warship | BMT Defence Services

This is a design plenty of people are speculating about that should the basis for the future MHPC program. Mine hunting, Hydrography & Patrol Capability. That program was spawned from the older Future Surface Combatant (old Type 26 program) program's C3 variant.

AFAIK the plan for MHPC is to for MHPC to initially replace our MCM vessels, but if it's got the Patrol capability, built in good enough numbers to keep the unit costs down & is marketed the same as the Type 26 I certainly think there is a future for it in the RN. But this is a while away AFAIK.

Check out the Black Swan sloop concept, an MOD study about a corvette/opv type combatant, it's quite interesting

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-black-swan-class-sloop-of-war-a-group-system

@John

I'm about to go out for a bit, but when i'm back i'll write a long proper reply