The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

I'd have thought if you decided to re-use the hull form but maybe trim it by a few frames, drop in CODAD instead of the CODLOG plant, you'd be able to slot in almost all of the kit in the same way and you'd conserve the upgrade paths fairly closely saving on through life costs.

I don't fancy a new and different hull (well, hell, I don't much fancy anything sort of "Type 26 without TSA")

 

[swerve]

You could fit most of the kit (not 2087, of course, but that's hardly a problem) in a much smaller hull, but I had a shudder of fear when I saw a suggestion elsewhere that a new light frigate could be based on the OPVs, with a 57mm or 76mm gun & a few CAMM. PPA-size I'd settle for - slightly less than T23, with CAMM or even CAMM-ER (more likely to off alone, or maybe escorting auxiliaries, than an ASW ship), & a cut-down VLS array. The Germans are looking at 5000t for the MKS180. CODAD - no problem.

How much could be cut from a T26 hull without compromising performance? Can't go too short & fat.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

BTW, it's been suggested elsewhere that a new class may be partly to keep a warship design team going.

 

[StobieWan]

BTW, it's been suggested elsewhere that a new class may be partly to keep a warship design team going.

That's my thought - by the time it comes up as an issue all eight Type 26 will be done, and that's some time off - okay, I'm kind of relaxing a bit. Doesn't have to be total doomsday.


It might be if the government of the day decides a flush deck rowing boat fitted for but not with oars is the order of the day but we *should* be into budget surplus and out of austerity by then. I'm going with "glass half full" for now - we've got orders for eight full fat type 26 so the yards are safe and the rest is a long way down the line.

 

[ngatimozart]

For the light frigate, why not just use the same hull power plants, etc., enlarge the mission bay and create a more modular system. Have a reasonable hull mounted sonar with good software, 24 or 32 cell Mk41VLS, good 3D and 2D radar, keep the 5in gun, Saab 9v or similar combat management system as much automation within the ship as possible, accommodation for extra bods etc. You save money with the hull and it will already have been set up for being quiet in the water. It is the internal compartments, fittings and superstructure that would have to be redesigned. For example you could move the mission bay and locate it below the quarter deck, hence making the mission deck accessible from the stern which will have advantages. If you don't have all the gucci gear like the Type 26 ASW then costs could reduce significantly (he says hopefully). If this variant could be in the water by say 2025 - 2027 then NZ may well be quite interested, because our two FFH out of service date is close to that time frame.

 

[oldsig127]

We get backing & veering by the same government.

The same in Australia. Just needs a change in PM, which happens more often than some people change their socks.

This sort of uncertainty does no-one any good, except I suppose the disarm at any cost proponents but it seems that "24 hour news cycle" adversarial government by sound bite doesn't allow the politicians to actually work towards an agreed "art of the possible" solution any more.

oldsig

 

[StobieWan]

For the light frigate, why not just use the same hull power plants, etc., enlarge the mission bay and create a more modular system. Have a reasonable hull mounted sonar with good software, 24 or 32 cell Mk41VLS, good 3D and 2D radar, keep the 5in gun, Saab 9v or similar combat management system as much automation within the ship as possible, accommodation for extra bods etc. You save money with the hull and it will already have been set up for being quiet in the water. It is the internal compartments, fittings and superstructure that would have to be redesigned. For example you could move the mission bay and locate it below the quarter deck, hence making the mission deck accessible from the stern which will have advantages. If you don't have all the gucci gear like the Type 26 ASW then costs could reduce significantly (he says hopefully). If this variant could be in the water by say 2025 - 2027 then NZ may well be quite interested, because our two FFH out of service date is close to that time frame.

Probably the biggest expense in the design is the drive arrangements which are quite complex, and I'd say that was low hanging fruit in terms of it being replaced in a Type 26 Lite variant for something cheaper. The sensor and weapons fit for the ships will be pull through from Type 23 so that's just refurb/refit costs.

I dare say the results might be a bit easier to export as well since not everyone wants a high end ASW frigate. I dunno, I'm puzzled but we'll see. Upbeat assessment, the RN gets two carriers in service, all the B's they can handle, firm orders for 8 modern frigates and Successor.

Could have been a lot worse.

Only question mark is what the replacement for the GP Type 23's will look like, but even then, there are aspirations for more numbers in future. Right now, manning considerations are more pressing for the RN than hulls - hence Ocean going on schedule once the twin carrier confirmation came through.

Don't forget, we've got a pile of US Coast Guard guys working in Type 23's right now to flesh out the engineering side of things...

 

[ngatimozart]

Probably the biggest expense in the design is the drive arrangements which are quite complex, and I'd say that was low hanging fruit in terms of it being replaced in a Type 26 Lite variant for something cheaper. The sensor and weapons fit for the ships will be pull through from Type 23 so that's just refurb/refit costs.

I dare say the results might be a bit easier to export as well since not everyone wants a high end ASW frigate. I dunno, I'm puzzled but we'll see. Upbeat assessment, the RN gets two carriers in service, all the B's they can handle, firm orders for 8 modern frigates and Successor.

Could have been a lot worse.

Only question mark is what the replacement for the GP Type 23's will look like, but even then, there are aspirations for more numbers in future. Right now, manning considerations are more pressing for the RN than hulls - hence Ocean going on schedule once the twin carrier confirmation came through.

Don't forget, we've got a pile of US Coast Guard guys working in Type 23's right now to flesh out the engineering side of things...

Thanks,, especially about the drive arrangements. As long as they don't end up having committee meetings about having committee meetings

 

[kev 99]

BTW, it's been suggested elsewhere that a new class may be partly to keep a warship design team going.

Well it was mentioned in the SDSR that it might be more suitable for exports as well........

 

[swerve]

For the light frigate, why not just use the same hull power plants, etc., .

As StobieWan says, the power plant arrangement seems to be complicated & expensive, so it still wouldn't be cheap. It wouldn't be lighter because it's the same hull, and you don't actually seem to be taking out the 'Gucci kit'. You still want the same gun, a big pack of Mk 41 VLS, decent hull sonar, radar, & combat system - what's different from the GP spec Type 26? It sounds like what we were supposed to be getting five of alongside the eight ASW T26s, but which has now been decided to be over-specced for GP.

 

[ngatimozart]

As StobieWan says, the power plant arrangement seems to be complicated & expensive, so it still wouldn't be cheap. It wouldn't be lighter because it's the same hull, and you don't actually seem to be taking out the 'Gucci kit'. You still want the same gun, a big pack of Mk 41 VLS, decent hull sonar, radar, & combat system - what's different from the GP spec Type 26? It sounds like what we were supposed to be getting five of alongside the eight ASW T26s, but which has now been decided to be over-specced for GP.

Hmmm, the 5in gun would be regarded as probably a necessity in this part of the world for NGS. Cut the VLS back to 16 cells but yes I see where you are coming from. The real issue is that you really don't want something that possibly could turn out to be "underwhelming" and restricts future upgrade paths, especially for small or medium navies who have only one tier of frigates.

 

[the concerned]

I've been wondering does HMS ocean have the capacity to replace HMS argus rather than just scrapping her as this does seem yet another waste of money

 

[swerve]

Hmmm, the 5in gun would be regarded as probably a necessity in this part of the world for NGS. Cut the VLS back to 16 cells but yes I see where you are coming from. The real issue is that you really don't want something that possibly could turn out to be "underwhelming" and restricts future upgrade paths, especially for small or medium navies who have only one tier of frigates.

Sorry, but I don't see the problem. There'll still be the very upgradeable Type 26 design. If someone wants a ship with long-term upgrade potential, I'm sure BAE would be happy to sell 'em T26, with or without the full RN fit-out & with the options of other radars, missiles, etc.

BTW, 'underwhelming' warships seem to be selling quite well. Look at Gowind.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm just puzzled as to why we'd be spending money on a design exercise, trying to work out how pull the kit through type 23 and beyond again into a different hull, then maintain the two hulls instead of one hull, some fitted for but not with.

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm just puzzled as to why we'd be spending money on a design exercise, trying to work out how pull the kit through type 23 and beyond again into a different hull, then maintain the two hulls instead of one hull, some fitted for but not with.

In fairness, for UK Govt PLC, it makes perfect sense.

#1 They fit NEW kit to T23, to extend their lives / upgrade them & generally field test the systems.

#2 They DESIGN T26 with the systems installed on T23.

#3 They BUILD T26 with the systems they have pulled off T23 on a 1 for 1 basis over a period of 10 - 15 years.

#4 They look at the long term picture, the cost saving that can be made by elongating the programmes to capitalise on the lack of manpower that the RN has, the capital expenditure of actually only having to buy x1 ship at a time, instead of trying to fund a whole class in one hit & the fact that by the time the 1 for 1 swap process takes place, that the govt that made the decision will have been x2 - x3 elections past, so the current encumbants will get blamed.

All the while the industry / manufacturing capability is maintained & everyone comes out smelling of roses...

Simples !

SA

 

[ngatimozart]

Sorry, but I don't see the problem. There'll still be the very upgradeable Type 26 design. If someone wants a ship with long-term upgrade potential, I'm sure BAE would be happy to sell 'em T26, with or without the full RN fit-out & with the options of other radars, missiles, etc.

BTW, 'underwhelming' warships seem to be selling quite well. Look at Gowind.

Yes I know and I am partially playing devils advocate, but there are easy maintenance and upgrade paths and difficult maintenance and upgrade paths. By that I mean things like easy access to cables, wiring, piping and ducting etc., without having to pull compartments and companionways etc apart because it is all hidden behind the bulkheads or is in the deckheads. That's a design issue and something that the Danes have done with their Iver Huitfeld and Absalon vessels. That's a commercial practice I believe and whilst it may not seem much, it does save a considerable amount of time and cost.

 

[RobWilliams]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/third-astute-submarine-formally-handed-over-to-the-royal-navy

HMS Artful was handed over to the RN the other week, official commissioning due in March 2016. I think that brings the SSN fleet up to 7.

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/13965

Last block of HMS Prince of Wales has been delivered to Glasgow 10 weeks ahead of schedule.

Can't wait to see those ships out to sea. End of next year to start sea trials then spring 2017 to sail to Portsmouth, soon after that off to the U.S. East Coast to pick up some F-35s. I think JPO is anticipating 4 in the the UK by 2018 so it's more ceremonial than anything really.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm super stoked to see the carrier in the water. I may do a ceremonial tour of every forum I can find that has a CVF thread, scroll back to the earliest comment saying they'll never ever be built and just type "HAH!"

 

[t68]

I'm super stoked to see the carrier in the water. I may do a ceremonial tour of every forum I can find that has a CVF thread, scroll back to the earliest comment saying they'll never ever be built and just type "HAH!"

yep you may have the last laugh, but it was a long and excruciating road to get to the end.

as long as two carriers remain into the future, now you just need a couple of LHD so they remain in there core role

 

[StobieWan]

There's been one or two twists and turns along the way for sure, between the "moving to the right" on ISD earlier in their construction, which cost more than just building the bloody things, and of course the SDSR U-turn on cats and traps.

I don't know what the plans are for replacements for Albion and Bulwark (Albion is in "extended readiness" ) - they're young yet however.

 

[RobWilliams]

LPD kicked down the road till 2040+, they're early 2000's vessels so the usual yardstick puts that out to 2030. But if they're being rotated and not being worn out as quickly, expect to see them stay for a long time.

Not really worth considering as a thing, essentially.

I want those morons who swore they were going to France/India/Brazil to step forward.