The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Something like a Hyuga class ship would never be deployed alone. It's a high value asset, designed to support & work with smaller ships. Anywhere there might be a significant air threat, it'd be escorted by an air defence sestroyer.

So, thinking of it as an alternative or supplement to frigates, which might be sent where a single destroyer or frigate might be sent, is a mistake IMO. As designed, it's an ASW flotilla leader, & for Australia to have five would necessitate the building of more ships (destroyers at least) to escort them.

LPH? Yes, if you redesign it to have more internal space for troops & their kit, but what do you lose? Or do you make 'em bigger? Sea control? Well, not with fixed-wing aircraft. There's a reason that Cavour & Juan Carlos were built that big: they're sized for F-35B. Ise & Hyuga would be fine with Harriers - just add a ski-jump - but there are no more Harriers, & they'd be marginal with F-35B. So if you're thinking of something smaller, it's limited to helicopters, & won't have much room for troops unless you leave out something else.

I'm not sure I'd want to put such a high-value ship close to a potentially hostile shore unless absolutely unavoidable, & where else would it be needed for MCM? All the likely places I can think of would be better served by specialists, helicopters which could be based on land or smaller ships, or equipment mounted (perhaps in easily removable modules) on much smaller ships, which can be devoted to mine clearing full-time while the big, expensive flat top does something it can do but they can't.

It looks to me like a ship that needs a bigger navy than the RAN.
Yes they are a high value ship in terms of flexibility and capability but in actual cost they are not much more expensive than a frigate and cheaper than a destroyer. The original Escort Cruiser concepts had Sea Slug, later ones Tartar and then Sea Dart, they were designed to be capable of independent operations but intended to actually defend less capable platforms from air and submarine threats, that is why they were proposed to Australia instead of DDGs.

I posted this here as I thought such a ship could be appropriate for the RN, the navy that seriously considered using light carriers to replace station cruisers, it was this idea, I believe, that led to the Escort Cruiser. At the upper end the concept was a missile cruiser without the Mk-26 6"guns (although a few sketches included Mk-6 4.5" twins) and the lower end was basically an escort carrier with a DDG sensor suit and armament.

My mention of the F-35B in relation to the modern iteration, was at the end of a sentence including Merlins, Wildcats and Crowsnest as well as a few possiblys and maybes, very much a, if you have the money and decide to make it bigger sort of proposal. Look at what has been achieved with Ocean and just imagine a better designed and built vessel, that can do pretty much everything Ocean does but excels at supporting ASW and AEW helos and is perfectly able to defend its self. An RN ship would have Artisan and Sea Ceptor, an RAN ship would have CAEFAR, Vampir NG (ASMD setup) and ESSM, either would be more capable of looking after themselves than a similarly equipped frigate. First they would have a greater radar horizon as the radar would be higher up combined with the same missiles as the frigate, then you have the possibility of Crowsnest (Merlin AEW or what ever it is to be called), more helicopters, potentially a lot more, covering ASW and anti-surface maybe even Apache / Tiger.

Its not going to happen, I know that but I do believe it is worth questioning some preconceived ideas as to what can and cannot operate independently (not that anything should if the threat level is too high). Not yet but I would not be surprised if we eventually see FFH, DDH, DLH? operating instead of traditional combatants. Volume search radars combined with very effective air defence missiles (USN is trailing ESSM in an anti DF-21D role reportedly with considerable success), high energy lasers, helicopter and UCAV, maybe even davit or stern ramp launched UUVs. Modular batteries/containers of Spike ERs, or even GMLRS positioned on sponsons off the flight deck that possibly could even be accessed, removed and replaced by a deck crane.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Progress on RFA Tidespring is massive, here's a really good pinterest album of her.

https://www.pinterest.com/navylookout/tide-class-rfa-tankers/

Considering she had her keel laid in January, she's properly bowling along. In October this year she's scheduled to move to A&P at Falmouth for fitting out with specialist equipment.

Seems like a hell of a good deal.

Oh, and the largest section (11,200t) of HMS Prince of Wales has been rolled out, by the end of the year all modules of the carrier are meant to be delivered.

https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/13105
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes they are a high value ship in terms of flexibility and capability but in actual cost they are not much more expensive than a frigate and cheaper than a destroyer. .....
Yes, the extra size does not lead to a proportionate increase in cost, but there's no point spending that moderate extra amount to buy the steel, the volume it encloses, & the power to drive it unless you also buy the stuff to fill it, which in this case means helicopters (expensive).
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, the extra size does not lead to a proportionate increase in cost, but there's no point spending that moderate extra amount to buy the steel, the volume it encloses, & the power to drive it unless you also buy the stuff to fill it, which in this case means helicopters (expensive).
Extra helicopters, or as I suggested above, UCAVs, UUVs etc. That's just currently demonstrated technology, what about future tech such as 3d printing to produce spares, even entire UCAVs or ordinance?. Then there is the ability to embark and support specialist capabilities, be that special forces, mine countermeasures or even littoral combat elements, including supporting helicopters and craft.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It's an expensive way to put MCM to sea. That can be done more cheaply with smaller vessels - much smaller vessels. Ditto UUVs.

The point isn't 'What can we fill it with?", but "What will we have, which we will need to get to sea?". Unless you're going to have a lot of helicopters, fairly large UCAVs, big UUVs, etc. (& that means spending to match), why do you need such a big ship, which will cost more than a frigate, to build, maintain, & operate? Giving your destroyers, frigates, even OPVs, the ability to carry packages of kit, UCAVs, UUVs, etc. gives you the ability to put them in a lot more places at once, at lower cost. A bit of flexible space, a crane or a small ramp, a 'dog kennel' or just a hangar with a bit of spare room . . . i.e. don't go for minimum size frigates & so on, but make sure they're big enough to fit in some extras, & any of this stuff can go on every one of them, when needed.

And for deploying littoral warfare craft, I'm not sure I'd want a ship that has to put 'em over the side on davits.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, the extra size does not lead to a proportionate increase in cost, but there's no point spending that moderate extra amount to buy the steel, the volume it encloses, & the power to drive it unless you also buy the stuff to fill it, which in this case means helicopters (expensive).

Having the practical knowledge & experience of 20 years of shipbuilding & support of the vessels, I'd have to argue that the 'steel is cheap & air is free' argument has to many intents & purposes, been ignored by the end user fraternity.

The downside is that many of the ships in service today are cramped & ill equipped. For instance T45 is considered a LARGE ship, but since the 1st one entered into naval service back in 2009, the war cry from Naval chiefs is that they don't have enough room for all the kit that the planners, the good ideas club & anyone who designed the vessel envisioned it to carry !

The navy were the first to make the statement that after the ink had been put on the contract for T45 (following the withdrawal from Project Horizon), that in the 2 years between withdrawal & signature, that if they (NOT the Politicians), had had their way, they would have asked for the ship to be completely redesigned, as the initial designs had been thought out in the 1980's & by 2000 the needs / requirements & the way wars were being fought had undertaken a technological step change.

15 years on & it is still the case !

Personally I believe ANY ship that's being designed at the moment should have a full 25% increase on it's initial baseline design, so that it can cope with 25 - 35 years of full service.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Having the practical knowledge & experience of 20 years of shipbuilding & support of the vessels, I'd have to argue that the 'steel is cheap & air is free' argument has to many intents & purposes, been ignored by the end user fraternity.

The downside is that many of the ships in service today are cramped & ill equipped. For instance T45 is considered a LARGE ship, but since the 1st one entered into naval service back in 2009, the war cry from Naval chiefs is that they don't have enough room for all the kit that the planners, the good ideas club & anyone who designed the vessel envisioned it to carry !

The navy were the first to make the statement that after the ink had been put on the contract for T45 (following the withdrawal from Project Horizon), that in the 2 years between withdrawal & signature, that if they (NOT the Politicians), had had their way, they would have asked for the ship to be completely redesigned, as the initial designs had been thought out in the 1980's & by 2000 the needs / requirements & the way wars were being fought had undertaken a technological step change.

15 years on & it is still the case !

Personally I believe ANY ship that's being designed at the moment should have a full 25% increase on it's initial baseline design, so that it can cope with 25 - 35 years of full service.
I recall seeing a profile in a mid 90s Military Technology or Naval Technology magazine of a post NF90, pre-Horizon Type 42 replacement. It was 175m long, i.e. longer than a Spruance / Ticonderoga with a medium calibre gun forward, a large VLS forward of the bridge and another aft of the helicopter facilities and boat arrangements plus TAS aft. I don't recall the full details such as proposed combat system but basically the concept was a RN Ticonderoga sized AWD that looked to be a hybrid of the Burke and Type 23. I vaguely recall the article saying the RN had to go it alone because the size of ship desired by the majority of European navies was far too small and specialised for the RNs needs.

Just imagine if the RN had been successful in getting this ship. Being pre-Horizon it would have been a contemporary, if not slightly ahead of, not only the Horizon but the F-100, F-124, De Zeven Provinciën, and more importantly built straight out of the Type 23 program. It would have been in service earlier, due to not having valley of death, probably cheaper, with its extra size more capable of being upgraded and accordingly more capable than the actual Type 45. In fact, being earlier and cheaper, chances are the RN may well have been able to swing eight, if not the entire planned twelve vessels, being a larger GP design the RN may even have been able to convince the government to keep on ordering them as replacements for the Broadswords and Dukes, pretty much as the USN continued to procure Burkes to replace Spruance class DDs.
 

rjtjrt

Member
Given the UK initially joining (and later leaving) the Horizon project, and the statement above that Horizon was too small for RN, I wonder why UK and Netherlands have not co-operated on ship design and building?
Seems their navies have a moresimilar operational concept that other continental European navies.
 

kev 99

Member
Personally I believe ANY ship that's being designed at the moment should have a full 25% increase on it's initial baseline design, so that it can cope with 25 - 35 years of full service.
That's suspiciously sensible, I don't think the politicians or the MOD would like it.
 

WillS

Member
Progress on RFA Tidespring is massive, here's a really good pinterest album of her.

https://www.pinterest.com/navylookout/tide-class-rfa-tankers/
There's a nice piece about the Tides (including a big picture of Tidespring) in the July issue of Desider, the inhouse magazine of DE&S.

You can see the PDF version at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/desider-2015, go to page 32/33.

There's also an article on Crowsnest on page 36 and news on the T23 upgrade program on page 18 (HMS Argyll, the first to receive Sea Ceptor, has just gone in for the refit).

WillS
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yeah, I lied the article because it's really "out there". With current development times, trying to develop tech for the 2050's probably does have to be started pretty soon anyway.

Clearly the article is OTT as its a massive future tech soup, but as a blue sky kind of approach as to what technology could be a thing, I like it.
 

spsun100001

New Member
Options for MPA's

Linked below is an article about the options to bring back an MPA capability. It has a heavy focus on a Lockheed Martin offer to convert retiring RAF C130's into MPA aircraft which it says would cost half as much as buying the P8.

To my mind there are two problems with that.

Firstly a new P8 would surely have a longer air frame life than a converted C130 which has been in service for several years so the saving might well be a false economy as the second hand air frame would need replacing sooner.

Secondly, isn't this Nimrod all over again where a ridiculously optimistic price is offered which takes no account of the uncertainties around converting air frames in a way which hasn't been done before. Surely the P8 has the advantage that its out turn cost is known and therefore there is far last risk of cost overruns (particularly if we buy the aircraft vanilla rather than spending ludicrous amounts of money trying to anglicise parts of the platform and it's equipment)

Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph
 

swerve

Super Moderator
LM has a lot of experience of turning C-130s - now including C-130Js - into MPAs. The USCG has been operating them for many years. The proposal for the UK should be a much more straightforward, relatively low risk modification than the almost-entirely-a-new-aircraft-but-pretend-it-isn't Nimrod MRA4. I expect it'd include the same Seaspray 7500E radar as the USCG has recently upgraded its C-130s with, for example - thus combining the advantage of 'already done' with 'we want British kit in our planes'.

But it would need more modification than the USCG aircraft, as it would have additional roles, & there's a question about the refurbishment of heavily used ex-transport airframes & their lifespan & reliability.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Linked below is an article about the options to bring back an MPA capability. It has a heavy focus on a Lockheed Martin offer to convert retiring RAF C130's into MPA aircraft which it says would cost half as much as buying the P8.

To my mind there are two problems with that.

Firstly a new P8 would surely have a longer air frame life than a converted C130 which has been in service for several years so the saving might well be a false economy as the second hand air frame would need replacing sooner.

Secondly, isn't this Nimrod all over again where a ridiculously optimistic price is offered which takes no account of the uncertainties around converting air frames in a way which hasn't been done before. Surely the P8 has the advantage that its out turn cost is known and therefore there is far last risk of cost overruns (particularly if we buy the aircraft vanilla rather than spending ludicrous amounts of money trying to anglicise parts of the platform and it's equipment)

Lockheed Martin offers up Nimrod replacement - Telegraph
IIRC, the LM proposal would be new C-130Js modified for MPA not using surplus C-130Js.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The proposals I've seen mentioned are for converting some of the existing inventory of C-130J & LM says that explicitly.

George Shultz, Vice President and General Manager C-130 Programs -

"We have been in discussions with the UK over its MMA [maritime multimission aircraft] requirement, and we believe that our solution [of converting existing C-130s in the inventory] could meet other customer needs around the world,"
Paris Air Show 2015: Lockheed Martin says maritime C-130 offering for UK has international potential - IHS Jane's 360
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The proposals I've seen mentioned are for converting some of the existing inventory of C-130J & LM says that explicitly.

George Shultz, Vice President and General Manager C-130 Programs -

"We have been in discussions with the UK over its MMA [maritime multimission aircraft] requirement, and we believe that our solution [of converting existing C-130s in the inventory] could meet other customer needs around the world,"
Paris Air Show 2015: Lockheed Martin says maritime C-130 offering for UK has international potential - IHS Jane's 360
If this is the case then I can understand previous comments about concerns using surplus (used) C-130s. On the plus side, kitting up a few surplus C-130s could offer proof of concept for a hopefully reasonable amount. Don't think the C-130J is going away anytime soon so if everything works, new aircraft could be fitted out as needed.

In Canada, at some point, our P-3C Aurora Orions will need replacement. The possibilities include the P-8, a combination of UAVs and a business jet MPA or perhaps the SC-130J. As the UK's need is more urgent, should the UK choose the SC-130J solution it will help Canada decide which way to go down the road.:)
 
Top