The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
StobieWan said:
The current scuttlebutt theory is that if Babcock do a half decent job of these, Type 32 will be a follow on order of more of the same in reality.

That's just a guess - nothing to back it up but I'm guessing a bit in that giving 32 it's own name, it leaves things open to award whatever looks betest at the time. Hopefully they'll be more heavily armed and better specified.
Click to expand...
There'll have to be an open competition, but if Babcock do what they're contracted to do with the Type 31 I think there's every possibility they'll win again.

You don't need an inside track to think there's a fair chance the Type 32 will be a modified Type 31 rather than a radically new design, because it will be a mature platform designed in mind with upgrade options and therefore lower risk. That's even without considering the fact the Indonesian contract will see a modified configuration, which will be useful in progressing the Type 32.

In other news I came across this report on Sea Serpent.

www.navalnews.com

DSEI 2021: IAI Unveils New Sea Serpent Anti-Ship Missile - Naval News

Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) showcased for the first time the new Sea Serpent anti-ship missile, which was developed in collaboration with Thales, at the DSEI 2021 trade show in London.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

I'm intrigued. IAI seem to be pushing this really hard as a special missile delivering what the Royal Navy needs rather than off the shelf Gabriel V. I'm not aware any of I-SSGW bidders are offering anything other than a standard version of their missiles.

The mysterious comment over the terminal phase implies it has something special that will be mentioned in a private UK briefing. Plus them stating the footprint should be similar to Harpoon and the range of "greater than" 290km makes it more than viable.

I'm just wondering if the I-SSGW delay has been caused in part by IAI making a late offer and that made the Royal Navy reconsider a provisional choice of NSM or Gungir.
 
R

Rudeboy

New Member
Musashi_kenshin said:
The mysterious comment over the terminal phase implies it has something special that will be mentioned in a private UK briefing. Plus them stating the footprint should be similar to Harpoon and the range of "greater than" 290km makes it more than viable.
Click to expand...
It will be terminal manoeuvering. For the West that started out with Kongsbergs Penguin's evasive manoeuvers in the end game, Harpoon's bunt (although that was more for the best attack angle but could throw off CIWS). Sea Eagle also undertook manoeuvers in the final stages of an engagement. NSM definitely does as well. I suspect most others will these days as with even minor changes in heading and altitude a gun based CIWS has to restart its calculations (and NSM and Sea Eagles were a fairly complex series of manoeuvres).
 
R

Rudeboy

New Member
Musashi_kenshin said:
Well sure. The question is, what sort of terminal manoeuvering. Otherwise I don't see why they would have refused to openly state it did that. But perhaps it was just a bit of salesmanship.
Click to expand...
Just salesmanship...same with the name. Any differences to Gabriel V will be marginal at best.
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This article is doing the rounds at the moment...

A big future for UK Shipbuilding...

There are rumours that the UK Govt could be posting an update on the Naval Shipbuilding Strategy they released a few years ago, just after they release this years Budget.

Until they do, all bets are off.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The UK Royal Navy (RN) plans to maintain its Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) in service for another six-and-a-half years.

UK extends Batch 1 River-class OPV life out to 2028

The UK Royal Navy (RN) plans to maintain its Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) in service for another six-and-a-half years, official documents have...
www.janes.com

To think four years ago Mrs May's government was keen to retire them. I have always regarded them as good basic no nonsense OPV's and always thought getting rid of them with less than 15 years out of them was simply dumb.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Damn right. The Batch 2s are being sent around the world doing other stuff, making up for the shortage of frigates & destroyers, & the job the Batch 1s were built for still needs doing.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
MrConservative said:
The UK Royal Navy (RN) plans to maintain its Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) in service for another six-and-a-half years.

UK extends Batch 1 River-class OPV life out to 2028

The UK Royal Navy (RN) plans to maintain its Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) in service for another six-and-a-half years, official documents have...
www.janes.com

To think four years ago Mrs May's government was keen to retire them. I have always regarded them as good basic no nonsense OPV's and always thought getting rid of them with less than 15 years out of them was simply dumb.
Click to expand...
Indeed - had the pleasure of a tour of HMS Severn very recently, just around her re-commissioning ceremony - they're quite roomy inside and are great for the tasks assigned.

Having been shown around one however, I can definitely say that any fan boy talk of up-gunning them would be hard to justify or achieve. They're good for constabulary work but definitely, don't send one to do a frigates job.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
StobieWan said:
Indeed - had the pleasure of a tour of HMS Severn very recently, just around her re-commissioning ceremony - they're quite roomy inside and are great for the tasks assigned.

Having been shown around one however, I can definitely say that any fan boy talk of up-gunning them would be hard to justify or achieve. They're good for constabulary work but definitely, don't send one to do a frigates job.
Click to expand...
It is a shame that they let the HMS Clyde go to Bahrain though. Its flight deck could have given just that extra bit of utility and having a 4th River Batch I hull fleet that extra bit of presence.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
swerve said:
Damn right. The Batch 2s are being sent around the world doing other stuff, making up for the shortage of frigates & destroyers, & the job the Batch 1s were built for still needs doing.
Click to expand...
When the RNZN was starting to plan Project Protector just after the the River Class Batch I were starting to be commissioned I thought they would have been a good fit for them. Still do in that bread and butter fisheries - customs - constabulary role that the IPV's attempted to do.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Musashi_kenshin said:
There'll have to be an open competition, but if Babcock do what they're contracted to do with the Type 31 I think there's every possibility they'll win again.

You don't need an inside track to think there's a fair chance the Type 32 will be a modified Type 31 rather than a radically new design, because it will be a mature platform designed in mind with upgrade options and therefore lower risk. That's even without considering the fact the Indonesian contract will see a modified configuration, which will be useful in progressing the Type 32.
Click to expand...

There's also the issue of bringing another design with possibly a new set of sensors, CMS etc into play - the original competition was quite innovative and simply set some some fairly flexible requirements and asked industry to show what they could do. Adding a third platform - that would be a stretch.

So, Type 32, it'd have to have some wording along the lines of "using the kit we already bought" I suspect.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Something like "Ease [or cost] of integration into current support arrangements" in the list of selection criteria, maybe? Plenty of things along those lines which could be put in which would give a big head start to anyone basing their proposal on the same platform.

Perhaps require Babcock/OMT to make the basic design available to others for a reasonable fee. They should still have an edge, as long as they don't pad the price for their offer.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
swerve said:
Something like "Ease [or cost] of integration into current support arrangements" in the list of selection criteria, maybe? Plenty of things along those lines which could be put in which would give a big head start to anyone basing their proposal on the same platform.

Perhaps require Babcock/OMT to make the basic design available to others for a reasonable fee. They should still have an edge, as long as they don't pad the price for their offer.
Click to expand...
Unless they order a straight forward additional batch of 31's without a recompete and offer up 32 as the next competition?

Going to be curious. We need replacements for the MCMs and the oceanographic ships at some point and certainly mine clearance seems to be pointed in the "keep me the heck out of that mine field while we sweep it" direction.

Which might work in modules and the 31 has the internal volume as a starting point.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Re mine clearance.

Yes, that occurred to me, too. I don't know whether the River B2s have the space for a containerised control unit & a minehunting drone or two (Singapore has such a setup in use for ports & the like), but if they have, it's something they could also be useful for.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Looks like the RN are considering FFBNWT the Mk-41 VLS to the Type 31 frigate for when they have to upgrade its fightiness. IMHO the Mk-41 should have been fitted from the beginning, because FFBNWT usually means that it doesn't happen. The next question is what type of and how many cells would they fit to the ships?

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Royal Navy looking to ‘increase lethality’ of Type 31 Frigates

The Type 31 Frigates will be 'fitted for but not with' the MK41 VLS missile launcher should the warships be required to operate the new surface-to-surface missile system.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, the Ivers have 32 (plus 24 Mk 56 which are if I remember correctly where the CAMM is in T32) so there is probably potential for a fair number. You'd probably have to rip out the forward 40 to do so, but that is not a deck penetrator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top