The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

O

overlander

Member
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Blackshoe said:
As an aside: this leads to one of the big problems with how Western nations love to flog HADR as a core capability/requirement for assets
Click to expand...
That's a relative thing. HADR gets money flowing. Look at Italy and their PPA, nominally originally flogged as HADR-core OPVs and built with a huge cash injection from the ministry of finance as industry support for a more general government asset. Except those OPVs are the size of DDGs and being planned with BMD capability in mind...
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
I think the Italians have done it before.

IIRC the third of the Santi amphibious ships, San Giusto, received funding from outside the defence budget, & supposedly in recognition of her being useful for disaster relief & the like.
 
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For the British, i think the Invincibles were originally pitched with a secondary disaster relief function, possibly owing to the role of HMS Triumph in Operation Burlap in 1970 and the formation of UNDRO the same year HMS Invincible was ordered; Operation Burlap (disaster relief in East Pakistan) in particular was indeed also mentioned in the Commons as a reason for a strong peacetime navy in general around '71/'72. It wasn't a big point - certainly not as much as with QE - but it was mentioned here and there.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Using HADR as an excuse to fund national defence assets absolutely pi$$es me off! Why, because of the massive amount of money that our pollies are willing to throw into failed states, repeatedly. Case in point, the failed half part of Hispaniola, Haiti. The bargin deal on the Russian Mistrals offered to the RCN would have left our navy as nothing more than a ferry service for Carribean relief deliveries. Money for Arctic sovereignty patrols and SAR is what we should be doing, not to mention our NATO obligations. Let the former colonial masters pick up the tab for island relief.
 
Last edited:
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
This is another opportunity for a NATO partner to step in and take over this vital role. Canada should step up and acquire both Albion and Bulwark and operate them as pooled assets for NATO. They would be available for a variety of roles from sea base to training to HADR to full on amphibious operations. These are far to valuable assets to see flogged off to non NATO navies.

As RCN vessels one would be available while the second would be alongside.

But like so many recent opportunities this will be passed over by our elected representatives.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It would depend on the price these ships were offered at. Politically this purchase would be difficult because of the perceived poor deal of getting used subs from the UK. Knowing junior, any purchase of these ships would be funded by cancelling one of the JSS ships, another political problem.
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Systems Adict said:
Well this happened today.....

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/october/27/171027-hms-severn-decommissions-after-14-years-of-service


ANYONE wanna buy a cheap OPV ???
Click to expand...
Well I reckon Nz might be giving the Royal Navys fire sale a once over, given how notoriously cheap our Labour govt has been in the past. Although no hangar on that Opv by the looks of it, a smaller autocannon, and not ice strengthened for our requirements in Antarctica. Maybe they could sell us Hms Echo? Were in the market for something similar.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
They're good OPV's but yeah, no hangar - and neither have their successors which raised a few eyebrows.

You could saw the 30mm off and replace it with a few other things- there's a 57mm mount with no deck penetration available for instance (bit of a flurry once the ready rounds are done but it's available)

They'll be fine for the roles they've been used for, although I still suspect counter drugs or piracy without a helicopter is a pain in the bum.

The reason I commented was because when the new builds were mooted there were discussions as to if the RN would keep the existing ones as they were fairly new - it looks like they'll be replaced on a 1:1 basis.

So, yeah, nice shiny OPV, barely run in by RN standards - I'm sure we're mailing a brochure down to Catalonia right now :)
 
W

Wall83

Member
The Royal Navy is not was it once was.
Its always one step forward then two steps backwards.

If you want to expend the Navy you cant bitch about the pricetag.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
No indeed - a while ago, when the surface combatant fleet dropped under 21, planning was still revolving around 21 being available and that was programmed out of using up the ships actually available very hard. That never goes well with the materiel or the sailors.

The discussion about plugging in 5 Type 31's in parallel with the 8 type 26's basically blows away any sustainable ship building program unless there's a commitment to then look at replacing the 45's very shortly after the 26 program gets moving, as in "straight into a design phase..)

Unless they add more 31's or look at replacing the type 45's very much sooner than usual all the ship building grinds to a halt at about the same time after having ramped up facilities to build at two sites.

Crap...
 
T

the concerned

Active Member
Could this force not be expanded to try and cover as many land based functions as possible plus maybe man the patrol boats .That might help eleviate the manpower shortage.this is the biggest problem right now not how capable each ship is.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
If you did that and then had the regular force spend more time at sea, I suspect you'd push your turn over up - the crews are already being thrashed senseless along with the ships. Everyone wants to go to sea in the Navy but they still do like to see the family now and then.

Someone just needs to get the wallet out unfortunately.
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Seaforth said:
Don't compare to other countries, it's not relevant.

UK mainland coastline is 17.8k km whereas Australian mainland coastline is 35.9k km. Does that mean RN beach assault requirements is half the RAN equivalent? No.

Is the RN planning on assaulting a U.K. beach? I doubt it. So which beach?
Click to expand...
I think people shouldn't immediately jump to that conclusion, amphibious warships primary use in peacetime IS HADR anyway.RAN actually wanted three LHD from Australian articles and comments here I have read.NZDF for that matter needs at least two LPD due to the number of disaster relief operations here and abroad.

British govt are nuts to do the sell off of key assets.The number of relief operations is only going to increase,due to climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top