The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Disagree, sealift is becoming a rare commodity what with the reduction of Point class RoRo vessels from 6 - 4 so we need those lane metres that the Bays provide if we ever need to deploy our armoured reaction forces or even a strengthened 3 Commando Brigade in a crisis.

Binning a Bay loses RFA crew, civilians who may not wish (or be able to) serve on a warship so the crew freed up is ambiguous at best, considering the relatively small crew they have anyway we're talking very small numbers of people if they wished to transition as opposed to deploying elsewhere within the RFA.

Bay's are cheap as chips to run, for what they provide selling them would be barmy. Besides, they're much more capable than just as an amphib anyway and this is bring demonstrated in the Gulf.

I'd rather keep the status quo and when the Type 26's come in then start shaving that crew off to support the operation of both the LPDs and - eventually - hypothetical LHDs.

As has been pointed out earlier , the LPDs will last longer than 30 years because one is always mothballed and isn't seeing the type of service as it would were it in actual service.

 

[kev 99]

Agree with Rob on all points. I'm still annoyed we sold Largs Bay off.

 

[Anixtu]

Ideal and maybe practical to some degree would be to sell another Bay class LSD and transition crew to bring Albion out of extended readiness.

Crew from a warship, not from a Bay.

Thanks to the RFA's manpower problems, Mounts Bay only has a skeleton refit-sized crew at the moment anyway, so I'm not sure what use <20 RFA personnel, or even their salaries if made redundant, would be for your plans.

 

[swerve]

It is accurate to a degree, it's suffering from the same problem as the Army. There's been so many tranches of cuts and a significant amount of internal 'doom and gloom' that recruitment is dropping and people are leaving the service faster than recruitment can make it up.

The delay in the induction of Scan Eagle was directly linked to a lack of qualified manpower to help bring it in.

I find it difficult to easily say that buying a ship and needing to find another 1000+ crew for her is something not to worry about.

The carriers are going to suck up the crew of both illustrious and ocean each including air group. There won't be a carry over of personnel to a third flat top. Reduction in RN manning is the guideline and it's up to the RN to decide how best to allocate that manpower. Right now with the carriers and everything, I'd rather see any extra manpower to into more escorts or bringing our laid up LPD back into service. But then that leads into budget problems.

So what you're saying is that there is a retention & recruitment problem, but it's one created by the manpower cuts.

That's a problem which could be cured, if there was the political will. If the government (1) decided it needed to man extra ships & (2) made available the money to do so, that would change the environment. Of course, it wouldm't be an instant cure, because there's a well-justified cynicism in the forces at the moment about the credibility of government promises, but if it was kept to, by the time we needed the extra people, we should have them.

Unhappily, I doubt that'll happen, but you should see my point. We have a manning problem because the politicians have created one. We could, given a changed policy which was stuck to for several years (& that latter is very, very, important), get rid of the manning problem. It's not something permanent & inevitable.

 

[rnrp]

So what you're saying is that there is a retention & recruitment problem, but it's one created by the manpower cuts.

That's a problem which could be cured, if there was the political will. If the government (1) decided it needed to man extra ships & (2) made available the money to do so, that would change the environment. Of course, it wouldm't be an instant cure, because there's a well-justified cynicism in the forces at the moment about the credibility of government promises, but if it was kept to, by the time we needed the extra people, we should have them.

Unhappily, I doubt that'll happen, but you should see my point. We have a manning problem because the politicians have created one. We could, given a changed policy which was stuck to for several years (& that latter is very, very, important), get rid of the manning problem. It's not something permanent & inevitable.

Thing is this is not going to get any better anytime soon, the more the escort & ssns are rotated back to back on deployments the less harmony time the crew are going to get. We are not talking loads of time off here and once the guts are ripped out of our people they will eventually vote to go.
This has knock on effects of lack of trained people in the right place and also eventually laying up of ships whilst crews from the flotillas are shipped literally from one place to another.
Albion in extended readiness is being crewed with a core of FTRS to keep her critical systems live.

 

[spsun100001]

OPV's

It's interesting (and rather a relief) that the OPV order doesn't come off the total - all we have to do now is to find the cash to run all the new ones and keep the existing ones and we will see an effective increase in hull numbers. If it means we're not tasking Type 45's to chase drug runners so often (once in a while is cracking fun and good training)

I'm not sure they'll be much good for drug busting, anti-piracy, interdiction, maritime rescue or much else as pretty much all of those missions require a helicopter to be anything other than a spectator and they have no hangar facilities.

To me, a naval ship without a helicopter operating outside UK territorial waters is about as much use as a gun without bullets. You can take it into situations and wave it around in the hope that its presence does some good and acts as a deterrent but it's of no practical use whatsoever

 

[StobieWan]

Fair point !


Meanwhile, slightly more encouraging possible news,


UK requests Tomahawk Block IV land-attack missiles from US - Naval Technology

Possible restock of UK TLAM with block IV.

 

[swerve]

I'm not sure they'll be much good for drug busting, anti-piracy, interdiction, maritime rescue or much else as pretty much all of those missions require a helicopter to be anything other than a spectator and they have no hangar facilities.

To me, a naval ship without a helicopter operating outside UK territorial waters is about as much use as a gun without bullets. You can take it into situations and wave it around in the hope that its presence does some good and acts as a deterrent but it's of no practical use whatsoever

Helicopters can be operated off ships without hangars, & often are. There are hordes of OPVs with helicopter decks, but no hangars. What purpose does the deck serve, if the ship can't operate a helicopter?

Such vessels are often tasked with the missions you list.

 

[Anixtu]

Helicopters can be operated off ships without hangars, & often are. There are hordes of OPVs with helicopter decks, but no hangars. What purpose does the deck serve, if the ship can't operate a helicopter?

Such vessels are often tasked with the missions you list.

Which of these OPVs regularly embark a ship's flight and take it into deep water? Having a flight deck for visiting helicopters is not the same as being able to embark, protect and maintain your own.

 

[kev 99]

Fair point !


Meanwhile, slightly more encouraging possible news,


UK requests Tomahawk Block IV land-attack missiles from US - Naval Technology

Possible restock of UK TLAM with block IV.

Looks like an increase in the number of weapons we will carry as well as a restock, possibly to mitigate against the end of production that may be imminent and/or to take advantage of the Astute class' increase in weapons storage. Either way it's good news.

 

[StobieWan]

Which of these OPVs regularly embark a ship's flight and take it into deep water? Having a flight deck for visiting helicopters is not the same as being able to embark, protect and maintain your own.

Would (for instance) being able to operate Scaneagle or a similar UAV compensate in some way for a lack of a dedicated helicopter?

I know it wouldn't provide the ability to insert search teams etc but it would give over-the-horizon cover in locating surface contacts?

And do we know if the new OPV's have a hangar (even a flex one) or not? Last I heard, probably not.

 

[RobWilliams]

An order of that magnitude represents an expansion in the current stock of missiles we already have, we had around 60 and fired off around a dozen TLAM at Libya so it's a good thing to see. As to the motive, the theory that it's to get an order in before production closes seems about right.

The US is planning on developing the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon from 2016 for an IOC in 2024. So in perspective, this is our stock of missiles for a while. This being the case, it leads to an interesting effect on our future frigates. Will we carry on alongside US cruise missile development and have this stock of TLAM be our entire stock for another decade?

With respect to the OPVs, they need the embarked helicopter otherwise you need to have other assets in theatre with one to be called upon. It's the helicopter and a boarding team which takes down the pirates and drug smugglers and searches the boats where the skif can outpace a surface ship. It should have it if it's going to be in the Caribbean or off Somalia. That bring said, in the case of the latter, an OPV with Scan Eagle provides a nice ISR capability which - presumably - could be used to vector in air on the right position presuming the right personnel and capabilities are there.

 

[kev 99]

The US is planning on developing the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon from 2016 for an IOC in 2024. So in perspective, this is our stock of missiles for a while. This being the case, it leads to an interesting effect on our future frigates. Will we carry on alongside US cruise missile development and have this stock of TLAM be our entire stock for another decade?

The order specifically states that these are Torpedo tube launched Tomahawks, which can't be used in conjunction with MK41*. If T26 gets a LACM then we would still have to place another order anyway.

* The missiles are the same but the cannisters they come in are different.

 

[Phd8511]

The order specifically states that these are Torpedo tube launched Tomahawks, which can't be used in conjunction with MK41*. If T26 gets a LACM then we would still have to place another order anyway.

* The missiles are the same but the cannisters they come in are different.

Thanks for this bit of information. But it doesnt dissuade the probability that the Type 26s may have Mk41 VLS cells does it?

 

[RobWilliams]

Ah, my bad

It'll be interesting how the initial attacks change if the US and the RN get into the sort of shooting which happened in Libya or even another scenario like if Syria actually erupted. The last fiscal plan projected a need for 980 missiles in 2015 and now it becomes 100.

I'd like to keep the SSNs doing cruise missile strikes as rarely as possible, it degrades their ability to conduct their primary missions; hunting and destroying enemy ships and submarines. They can't do that locked in pre arranged launch grids waiting for the order to launch.

Get it on surface ships, get it ASAP.

 

[Bonza]

Thanks for this bit of information. But it doesnt dissuade the probability that the Type 26s may have Mk41 VLS cells does it?

I think it's virtually a certainty that the Type 26 will have some form of strike length VLS, whether it's the Mk. 41 for Tomahawk/LRASM or Sylver A70 for SCALP/MdCN. I know the design isn't finalised yet but it's apparent Britain is looking for customer nations and lacking a flexible VLS would be a big black mark against its name compared to the competition.

Personally I think it'll end up being around 32 VLS, with the strike length cells positioned appropriately. Gives you say 32 ESSM (or CAMM more likely for the Royal Navy), 8 ASROC, 8 LRASM and 8 Tomahawks, with the ability to mix up armament as is appropriate. Dropping Tomahawks for additional CAMM while part of an escort group, for example. But it could just as easily appear with 40-48 VLS, upping the warload considerably.

 

[Phd8511]

I think it's virtually a certainty that the Type 26 will have some form of strike length VLS, whether it's the Mk. 41 for Tomahawk/LRASM or Sylver A70 for SCALP/MdCN. I know the design isn't finalised yet but it's apparent Britain is looking for customer nations and lacking a flexible VLS would be a big black mark against its name compared to the competition.

Personally I think it'll end up being around 32 VLS, with the strike length cells positioned appropriately. Gives you say 32 ESSM (or CAMM more likely for the Royal Navy), 8 ASROC, 8 LRASM and 8 Tomahawks, with the ability to mix up armament as is appropriate. Dropping Tomahawks for additional CAMM while part of an escort group, for example. But it could just as easily appear with 40-48 VLS, upping the warload considerably.

Uhm diagrams show 16 VLS strike cells. Will the UK buy ASROC? They dont like their sting ray torpedoes anymore?

 

[Phd8511]

Queen Elizabeth-class naming

Despite all the gloom and wavering over the project, I'm (and I'm sure many here are) glad its being named today. It is a masterpiece despite how it came about.

 

[kev 99]

Thanks for this bit of information. But it doesnt dissuade the probability that the Type 26s may have Mk41 VLS cells does it?

Absolutely not.

I don't really think any of us are certain which way the penny will drop on a VLS for land attack cruise missiles, we're not even 100% sure the Type 26 will get any, but with no obvious space for Harpoon or other anti ship missiles we're expecting some sort of VLS to be included.

 

[RobWilliams]

Personally I think it'll end up being around 32 VLS, with the strike length cells positioned appropriately. Gives you say 32 ESSM (or CAMM more likely for the Royal Navy), 8 ASROC, 8 LRASM and 8 Tomahawks, with the ability to mix up armament as is appropriate. Dropping Tomahawks for additional CAMM while part of an escort group, for example. But it could just as easily appear with 40-48 VLS, upping the warload considerably.

I'd disagree to a point, IMO it'll probably be 16 with weight/space reserves for another 16 like the scenario with the Type 45s (48 + 16) which would come into effect later on in the lifetime of the ship.

The Rn won't need more anti-air missiles, they're pretty heavy on that front anyway already carrying 48 CAMM missiles dotted around the ship. The silo - under current plans - isn't meant to need to hold CAMM.

With respect to ASROC, it'd either be surface launched torps or rely on the helo, preferably the former, but I don't see us getting ASROC. May as we'll pull the systems forward from the Type 23s.

As has been pointed out before, all designs don't show Harpoon launchers and there doesn't appear to be a clear indication on any of the models which show the space. So one could draw the conclusion the plan is to use the VLS to hold 'em which points to only one system - LRASM. Can't cooperate with the French as their very capable solution (MM30 Exocet) isn't VL compatible IIRC.

That could then be extrapolated to mean Mk41 because otherwise we need to fund the integration costs of LRASM onto the A70. But that then means we have two different VLS within the fleet and I don't know what sort of fiscal implications that has, it surely has to be more than one large single fleet.