The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
ASSAIL said:
It's fascinating to think that BAE believe these extra two will open up "export" opportunities. I would have thought they are about a five years behind their competitors in that endeavour.
Click to expand...
Nature of the beast, they can't not at least look for export opportunities and sound optimistic.
 
D

DaveS124

Active Member
The British are back.

Good opportunity for RAN to add to the screen with Hobart DDGs and frigates, and RAAF with P-3/8, Wedgetail and E-G550.

Bits here from UK Defence Journal. One thing not mentioned is the critical role of the new UK base at Bahrain: specifically designed and built to support long range "east of Suez" carrier ops, after all these years.

December 28, 2016


It has emerged that the UK plans to sail HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Pacific in 2021 amid concerns regarding freedom of navigation in the region.

HMS Queen Elizabeth will sail to the Pacific on her maiden deployment in 2021 according to an ambassador.

Sir Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador to the US said at a think-tank event in Washington:

“As we bring our two new aircraft carriers on-stream in 2020, and as we renew and update our defence forces, they will be seen in the Pacific.

And we absolutely share the objective of this US administration, and the next one, to protect freedom of navigation and to keep sea routes and air routes open.”

Currently in the final stages of completion, HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to go sea for contractor trials in March. She’ll return to the Forth once those are done for a final period of fitting out and testing.

In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin HC4 and Wildcat HM2. We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 flight aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities.

The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number being determined by requirements.

We understand that the composition of the CVW is a balance between ship capacity and squadron availability. Squadrons assigned or ‘programmed’ to sail on deployment will mostly in the case of the aircraft carrier be unique to it, for example the airborne early warning helicopters that have no other purpose but to serve the carrier force.

In addition, we have also been told that we will shortly see decisions like this for the F-35B and maybe a utility helicopter (or tilt-rotor in future) type.

The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers, up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions.

The expectation that the vessels will sail with around 24 F-35Bs is, according to an insider source we spoke to, because “It is not that they can’t do land based operations, just that there is a need to get the return on investment for the well found forward deployed bases that these aircraft carriers that form the centre of the CSG are” and that “the capacity of the F-35B force in the near years in particular is very limited and it is unwise to do other deployments”.

The impression is that they’re going all out to get as many on the deck as possible and that the earlier figure of 12 was “RAF ambition to maintain flexibility to conduct land based operations” and not the policy position that is developing.

The Queen Elizabeth class mark a change from expressing carrier power in terms of number of aircraft carried, to the number of sortie’s that can be generated from the deck. The class are not the largest class of carrier in the world but they are most likely the smallest and least expensive carrier the Royal Navy could build which still have the advantages that large carriers offer.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to start sea trials in March, followed by sister ship HMS Prince of Wales in the coming years.
Click to expand...
MORE HERE - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bri...rce=TW&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=social
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The UK Defence Minister has just announced about £500 allocation to get the "Crowsnest" programme underway.

My query is however, given that up to 5 airframes may be needed to give 24/7 coverage, could the F35 provide the same coverage and possibly superior and therefor, would it be a smarter use of resources for the QEs to to carry only one main aircraft type (plus SAR and possibly future tankers)

I'm out of date here but what does Crowsnest/Searchwater provide that the Lightnings can't?
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
ASSAIL said:
The UK Defence Minister has just announced about £500 allocation to get the "Crowsnest" programme underway.

My query is however, given that up to 5 airframes may be needed to give 24/7 coverage, could the F35 provide the same coverage and possibly superior and therefor, would it be a smarter use of resources for the QEs to to carry only one main aircraft type (plus SAR and possibly future tankers)

I'm out of date here but what does Crowsnest/Searchwater provide that the Lightnings can't?
Click to expand...
Searchwater is 360 deg coverage and it's a RoRo system on the Merlin HM2's so it'd still be one pool of aircraft on board covering two roles. I've heard 14 Merlins being a standard number which'd cover 5 for AEW and 9 for ASW which, i've been told, need 3 to sustain 1 in the air.

Going to be limited on F-35s so need to keep them for fightey roles, they'll still be conducting CAPs etc.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Aster is not well suited to an anti-ship role. The 'dart' is relatively small, with a warhead optimised for use against aircraft. Aster is basically an AAM with a booster.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
Pretty much yeah, if you want it to do AShM work then you want a proper AShM to do it.

If you're talking FIAC and the like you'd ask for something different. Depends whether or not the Government sees the surface force remaining in the 'ship sinking' game which starkly contrasts with what the USN is doing.
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
Vulcan said:
Pretty much yeah, if you want it to do AShM work then you want a proper AShM to do it.

If you're talking FIAC and the like you'd ask for something different. Depends whether or not the Government sees the surface force remaining in the 'ship sinking' game which starkly contrasts with what the USN is doing.
Click to expand...
Didn't I read somewhere that UK and France were in cahoots on a development of the venerable exocet to bring it into the 21st century......
Perhaps I imagined it
MB
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Milne Bay said:
Didn't I read somewhere that UK and France were in cahoots on a development of the venerable exocet to bring it into the 21st century......
Perhaps I imagined it
MB
Click to expand...
Yep mate they are going from coal fired steam boilers to oil fired steam boilers for it :D No I believe that they are developing a new AShM - Naval SSM together. Will be interesting to see what comes out of it. Unfortunately for the RN the mandarins in the MOD have made a policy decision to axe harpoon without any replacement in sight. Almost Monty Pythonish.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
Milne Bay said:
Didn't I read somewhere that UK and France were in cahoots on a development of the venerable exocet to bring it into the 21st century......
Perhaps I imagined it
MB
Click to expand...
The guys over at MBDA are working on a dual role AShM/cruise missile based on Storm Shadow/SCALP however very little is known, google 'Perseus' for the high level stuff that came out a few years ago. As an aside the aspirational ISD is 2030 and it's quite nice to read about, Mach 5, multiple warheads yadda yadda yadda

The trouble is the French can wait, they have the newest blocks of Exocet and only recently brought in a new cruise missile so it's not a funding priority for them so if we want it earlier we'll have to get our wallet out.
 
Vulcan

Vulcan

Member
Very true comment.

As the article says the whole class is due to be in service within the next 24 months as scheduled anyway.
 
H

humphuy

New Member
I agree totally that this is the reality of the present situation.

What I want to see is a real effort made to at least begin to redress the decline in the FAA and rebuild it for the 2020s and beyond. Of course that will cost money but surely the money spent on the CVFs will be largely wasted if it is not done!

If the government waits until the new carriers enter service before it discovers that the deployed airgroups are not much bigger than those that went to sea on the Invincibles three decades previously and then decides to do something about it, the new carriers could spend half (or more) of their service lives with woefully under strength airgroups, in the same way that Illustrious struggled along during more than half of her service in WW2.

I can understand that the RN does not want to make too much noise about this issue until the construction program is so far advanced that it is irreversible as it wants to ensure that the ships are definitely built but the restoration of the FAA needs to begin soon.
 
H

humphuy

New Member
Pretty much yeah, if you want it to do AShM work then you want a proper AShM to do it.

If you're talking FIAC and the like you'd ask for something different. Depends whether or not the Government sees the surface force remaining in the 'ship sinking' game which starkly contrasts with what the USN is doing.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
humphuy said:
I can understand that the RN does not want to make too much noise about this issue until the construction program is so far advanced that it is irreversible as it wants to ensure that the ships are definitely built but the restoration of the FAA needs to begin soon.
Click to expand...

Hate to say this, but as soon as the steel was cut on the 2nd ship it was FAR TOO Late to do anything about it (I believe that was back in 2010).

The RN are only too aware of the 'Champagne Lifestyle on Lemonade wages' scenario that they are in, but they will make the best of the situation as that is all they can do.

The fact that much of the tri-services in the UK are using the same resources, with reduced numbers across the board, everyone feels the lack of investment in equipment, personnel & a myriad of other things that mean we either cope with the slaughter that happened between 2012 - 2015 in staffing or each service will be in a 20 year loop waiting till budgets come up for a single service to take the govt pot to spend on everything they want, while the others mend & make do.

SA
 
S

Sellers

New Member
More hulls > capability

A suggestion to invoke some debate around presence v capability

Scenario:

-T31 cancelled, with development savings reinvested into remaining fleet.

-X2 gp t23 retired as new x5 opv are introduced. Retain all current river opvs utilising manning secured from dd/ff fleet reducing to 17.

-Harpoon from t23s cross decked to x2 remaining t45 and next generation harpoon integrated from t31 cancellation savings.

-11 fully equppied asw t26 ordered, increased from 8. Expense covered from the budgeted plan for 5 t31. Importantly mk41 dropped from t26 to reduce cost.

-mk41 dropped from t26, but instead fitted to t45, tommahawk fitted to all 6 t45)

Deployed as such:

Windies: batch 2 opv (permanent benefit, less strain on rfa)
Falklands: clyde (status quo)
Gib: batch 2 opv (positive news story for RN)
Eastern med: batch 2 opv (positive for RN, commitment to EU security)
Indian ocean/east africa: batch 2 opv (constant presence, good news for RN)
Fisheries: x1 batch 2 opv and x3 batch 1 (good news for RN, increased presence UK waters, guardship for deterrent, lilly pad for merlin?)

CASD: t23/t26 asw
Fres: t45
Gulf: t45
Baltic: t23/t26 asw (commitment to EU security, could be pulled back to uk waters if russian subs suspected to be in area)
East of suez: t23/t26 asw (perhaps occasional deployment to s atlantic)

17 ship (first rate aaw/asw) fleet should be able to generate at least 1 more escort to deploy with carrier. Most likely to deploy to gulf to support anglo american interests, pull in t23/26 from east of suez, existing t45 and then whatever escorted carrier to region forms the carrier group (invite US/french/allied escort to support as we have done) = complete battle group.

Savings from cancelling t31, removal of mk41 from t26 to support an investment in mk41 for type 45's, then this would reduce the requirement for astutes/trafalgars east of suez as stand by tlan capability as t45 could fulfil this role.

Benefits being:

-t45 fully rounded escort with all having sea viper, harpoon and land attack capability, particularly useful in fres role too.

- x17 RN units with ashm, verse projected zero (or current 17)

- x13 RN units with tlan capability

- astute/trafalgar x2 can be deployed constantly to GIUK gap/CASD/Artic presence to deter Russians in conjunction with t23/26 casd deployment.

-in time from x7 sub fleet, a third sub worked up to deploy with carrier group (effectively max peacetime effort) say 5/6 month deployment to gulf.

Yes this would mean a reduced first rate fleet, but would enable a genuine global presence with ships deployed to taskings that suit.

Cheers,

Sellers
 
Last edited:
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not liking the idea of a frigate without any VLS other than the Sea Ceptor launchers - seriously limits their usefulness I suspect.

Also, TLAM on a surface ship would need a change in stock levels to make it supportable - we currently hang on to about sixty I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top