I would have thought another run of Type 26 would have made far more logical sense for the RN - if you look at the design timeline for 26 then realise you're trying to put another pull through program for the type 23 kit to go into a new design, plus the inefficiencies of a start/stop cycle--just plugging in a further batch of type 26 GP would have been more sensible.Had a look thru both BAE & the RN's press releases on their websites, there is NOTHING resembling comments about Type 31.
Manufacturing contract for Type 26 Global Combat Ship awarded to BAE Systems | BAE Systems | International
Deal signed for first three new Type 26 frigates
Even the Gov't haven't included it in theirs...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-billion-pound-defence-deal-secures-thousands-of-uk-jobs
With x3 ships on the cards, with a possible x5 to follow in the early 2020's (something for the NEXT Govt to worry about !), Type 31 may turn into a pipe dream, as situations change as time goes on.
Who knows, they may find a few £Billion lying around to build MORE T26's...?
SA
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I think initially, the intent was that Type 31 would be a stripped out Type 26 (No Mission Bay, no towed array & a few other bits n bobs, but effectively using the same hull form, if a little shorter.
After a while that changed & it looked like it was going to be a design based on the Oman OPV's
Khareef Class Corvettes - Naval Technology
But of late, I can't say that I've heard anything.
With x6 T45's, x2 CVF, x2 Albion class LPD(R)'s & the use of x3 LSD(A)'s, plus the x2 oilers, the current x3 Rivers & the replacement x5 in production, the RN will have to seriously look at how they intend to progress.
Like many nations our mix of High / Low order ships, their age & the ability to actually man & run them will be a key factor.
With the announcement of the 1st batch of x3 Type 26's being less than a week old, it's fair to say that by the time we get to 2023 / 2025, they will have damned good idea of what they want.
Personally, I think that UK PLC should shy away from the farce of attempting to build ships as units, in different parts of the country, using different suppliers, then shipping them to a central site for assembly & only then trying to fix all the issues while failing to deliver a product on time, to a budget. (the issues with both Type 45 & CVF should be pretty much the examples to prove that it DOESN'T work !)
Anyway, here's hoping it's MORE Type 26's !
SA
A UK company has come up with a contender for the Type 31. Looks interesting but no details about size or crewing.
Spartan – A contender for the Type 31 Frigate?
Spartan – A contender for the Type 31 Frigate?
PeterCrisp
Member
This is an odd question but the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier that just launched has plenty of space on both sides could they use that to hang solar panels for power generation when stationary?
It would take pressure off the generators and save them money on fuel so why does no aircraft carrier (as far as I know which I freely admit isn't much to be fair) do this?
Also I remember a while ago reading that a system of kites is being developed which can help with propulsion for cargo ships why has this not been looked at?
SkySails GmbHÂ -Â SkySails Propulsion for Cargo Ships
I imagine fuel is a big part of the cost of sending ships to sea and it could mean they need less replenishment so why does it seem like fuel saving is such a low priority.
It would take pressure off the generators and save them money on fuel so why does no aircraft carrier (as far as I know which I freely admit isn't much to be fair) do this?
Also I remember a while ago reading that a system of kites is being developed which can help with propulsion for cargo ships why has this not been looked at?
SkySails GmbHÂ -Â SkySails Propulsion for Cargo Ships
I imagine fuel is a big part of the cost of sending ships to sea and it could mean they need less replenishment so why does it seem like fuel saving is such a low priority.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
You could utilize the entire flight deck for solar panels and the power produced wouldn't be sufficient for most systems other than lights and charging lithium ion batteries. Not sure how well solar panels would stand up in a salt water environment. Fuel is a major cost for ships at sea. Big diesels and GTs use lots of fuel and there is no way around this.
t68
Well-Known Member
Beside the initial cost of nuclear, how well does the cost of running a conventional ship to nuclear over the 50 year life expectancy of the ship?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The current low fuel costs don't make the nuclear option very attractive now. Any damage to a nuclear power propulsion system would render any naval vessel useless as the crew would have to leave the ship or be exposed to radiation. Nuclear has advantages for submarine propulsion. Also a large super carrier benefits from nuclear ( better power, elimination of fuel at sea replenishment). Disposal of spent fuel rods and reactor cores along with other radioactive waste is not cheap. The Russians have a built a significant number of nuclear icebreakers despite this. Guessing their disposal costs are less than the West's. A background count of Arctic Ocean water near Russia could explain this reduced cost.
well, looks like the build in bits element went by the by more or less - there's only two yards available and they're so close, they can share cranes.
IF you're referring to Govan & Scotstoun they're roughly a mile apart, on opposite banks of the river Clyde, the Govan yard being closer to Glasgow City Centre, so I don't think they could share cranes. However, since the majority of the Clydeside shipyard berth cranes have been condemned, the yards moved to something very similar to these...
https://www.manitowoccranes.com/en/cranes/grove/grove-product-literature/current-products (LOOK at the 5250L's !)
Anyways, I went to have a look at the article about the Spartan Hull form & noticed this instead...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-leonardo-ammunition-triple-type-26-frigate-gun-range/
THIS makes more sense, as it moves away from the standard, 2 piece, 5 inch rounds, to the Volcano, a single piece round (just think of a 7.62mm round, but make it large enough that the base of the round is on the deck & the tip of the round is in your armpit !)
But getting back to Spartan, it reminded me of this.....
Lekiu Class - Naval Technology
It is surprising what you can actually get into a ship that's less the 2,500 GRT & 100m long !
SA
http://www.stellersystems.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/02/Project-Spartan-Brochure.pdf
Spartan looks like it has some neat features like a very roomy hanger and open central space, kind of like the type 26.
Seems to be a critical size going from <2000t to <2500t. That extra size seems to allow for a significant capability upgrade. Not very beamy, not sure how high you could fit a very large radar if that is what you wanted to do.
I'd gotten the impression that they'd basically bought a couple of mobile cranes that could be relocated so it was a sort of a whimsical remark - they're closer than Portsmouth for sure
Vulcano would be awesome, a real step change in terms of NGFS.
I'm not a Navy guy but when speaking about the "Liz" I noticed she's not going to have RAM or ESSM installed, unlike USN super carriers. She has a great EW suite but relies on Phalanx only for self defense.
Is this due to cost or is this RN doctrine?
I'm assuming the CSG commander will be networked into all the systems of the strike groups ships, and this probably isn't a concern, but I found this an odd difference. Most of all, and correct me if I'm wrong, since both Sea Ram and ESSM are multi-National efforts.
Is this due to cost or is this RN doctrine?
I'm assuming the CSG commander will be networked into all the systems of the strike groups ships, and this probably isn't a concern, but I found this an odd difference. Most of all, and correct me if I'm wrong, since both Sea Ram and ESSM are multi-National efforts.
Given the track record of the UK MOD...I'm going to bet it was a "Fitted For But Not With" cost decision.
RAM is basically a drop in swap for CIWS...you can swap the mounts out easily if desired, but they are obviously more expensive and more specialized towards anti-missile work.
I have heard rumors that the QE's may get CAMM in the future, which would be a rough equivalent to ESSM. No idea how much future integration that would require, as a missile like CAMM/ESSM is not a drop in installation, and requires interface with the combat system.
SeaRam is a drop in replacement for Phalanx - it's an 11 round mount tied to the existing Phalanx mount and radar so that's a maximum of 5.6km range - RAM is a 24 cell launcher which needs radar to point it and is limited to the range of the misile, which on block 2 is 10km.
CAMM on QE might be straight forward - the radars fitted to the carrier are the S8150 and the Type 999 (Artisan, as fitted to the Type 23) -and the carrier runs using CMS, same combat system installed on Type 23 so theoretically, that would involve fitting some cells (cold launch so no huge footprint) and running some cables.I may have missed some steps there, but CAMM on a QE doesn't look too much of an engineering project.
It'll never happen however - Sea Dart was pulled from all three CVS in order to find two more spots on deck for Helos and that was the last time the RN fitted missiles to carriers.
Sea Ceptor (CAMM) is open architecture so unlike ESSM, doesn't need a fire control radar. It would still have to be integrated into the combat system, but that would only have to be done once if it has dedicated consoles. The Danish Navy use open architecture consoles so it's just a matter of reloading the software as required.
Vulcan
Member
Last time the Invincibles had Sea Dart, they were removed as it was viewed that it was better to have more deck space for aircraft than the missile system. No doubt the removal of associated guts inside had some other benefits as well.
To state the blatantly obvious, I get the feeling that 'Liz n Charlie' will not get ANY missile systems, at all & the reason is quite simple.
QEC will pretty much travel EVERYWHERE with an armed escort. Whether that be a single T23, or a T45. The likelihood is that it will be at least one of each, plus x1 sub & an Oiler / RFA.
Acting as a CBG, the Carrier will be at the centre, with the escorts placed strategically around the periphery. Between them they'll act in concert, sharing data & if required at the appropriate time, the escorts will be used as a shield to protect the carrier (similar idea to the picket ship T21 / T22's in the Falklands conflict).
When fitted with her carrier wing of aircraft, longer range data between the aircraft & the carrier will help provide a more rounded picture, to allow better preparation for any perceived threat.
Simples...
SA
As I said "I'm assuming the CSG commander will be networked into all the systems of the strike groups ships, and this probably isn't a concern," Actually it IS a concern cause what happens when that 45 gets hit? Then what?
Some strategy, the Bullet Catcher Strategy, and it all depended on the AShM zagging instead of zigging. They got lucky with the Argies, lucky they didnt lose a carrier which would have drowned the entire show.
Not simple. You didn't answer the question why a bigger and better protected USN CV would have its own RAM, ESSM, AND Phalanx and a RN carrier doesnt. China, Russia, and India are selling super sonics to anyone with a credit card and the threat is only going to get worse. And I dont see any of the three helping England, like France did in the Falklands, to defend against them.
2 DDGs lost, 2 FFGs, a troop carrier, a supply ship, and luckily some bombs didnt go off and France played ball. Luck! The Falklands war is a blueprint to the future for the RN yet the existential threat to a CV is even worse today and will be even worse 10 years from now.
I guess I have to answer my own question. There is no good reason to leave RAM and ESSM off such an expensive and important ship.
Thanks for the respectful reply. Things is Sea Ram takes up no more space then Phalanx and if we can put ESSM on a LHD then why cant the Brits put it on a super carrier? The Liz came in way over budget and the RN is upgrading the entire show, CVs, DDGs, FFGs, SSNs, and eventually SSBNs. Let alone F35B and all the systems and bullets for all of the above.
Its a real big ticket to punch, being a World Class Navy.
Way over budget largely because of political decisions, firstly to delay & stretch out the build to make the budget look better in the short term at the expense of overall cost, & then a diversion into building her with cats & traps, a political decision taken without examination of the costs & risks & reversed when they'd been worked out. That had short-term costs & caused a further delay which pushed the price up again.
There've been other costly political decisions. A seemingly sensible arrangement to commit government to steady procurement, by signing a contract to pay shipyards to keep their workforces intact, thus saving the costs of stop-start shipbuilding, has gone sour because the bloody politicians didn't place orders for the ships to keep those workers working. So the government ordered some OPVs, because it might as well get something for the money it has to pay out, & keep the skills of the workers current. We get some better & newer OPVs, but it means that we're spending money on ships we don't need which should be being spent on frigates that we do need, & which we're still committed to buying.
We have other problems imposed by political stupidity, e.g. sacking a lot of servicemen & women to save money, which meant having to pay them to go away, & cutting recruitment. The resulting demoralisation led to many others quitting when they could. When it was realised that too many people had been got rid of, even a small partial reversal turned out to be expensive & difficult. It's harder to recruit than before the sackings. We're assigning a destroyer to alongside training because of crew shortages.