The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Staff availability could well be an issue but cost, maybe not. Money would be for them instead of fuel for GTs. However decommissioning cost would need to be determined from the study with an accurate number. Enough for now, will wait and see if this study provides any useful information (assuming I am still around).

Costs aren't really known. Decommissioning goes on for a long time. So costs are large because uncertainty is large.

Project to dismantle ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarines inches forward | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

It is currently a bit of a blackhole. Costs aren't known and won't be fully known for decades. This if for submarines commissioned in the 1960s.

The UK is still in the process of building a facility to store stuff from the 1960s based on decisions from the 1950s.

Nuclear Waste Services engages market on £1.5bn contracts for geological disposal facility | New Civil Engineer

In a prior information notice (PIN), NWS said it is notifying suppliers of the two future requirements and is looking to engage with the market to assess

www.newcivilengineer.com

I don't think SMR are ideal for military ships. The ideal reactor for military ships is generally something like a submarine reactor. They are designed for that application already. There is a workforce, there is production capability, they are lower risk in build and operation.

For some drones and listening posts, nuclear RTG might be of interest. There may be a specialized SMR for military purposes.

Uranium Enrichment - World Nuclear Association

Most of the commercial nuclear power reactors in the world today require uranium 'enriched' in the U-235 isotope for their fuel. The commercial process employed for this enrichment involves gaseous uranium hexafluoride in centrifuges.

world-nuclear.org

 

[protoplasm]

I don't think SMR are ideal for military ships. The ideal reactor for military ships is generally something like a submarine reactor. They are designed for that application already. There is a workforce, there is production capability, they are lower risk in build and operation.

This is the point. We already have designs that work in relatively small spaces in military vessels. Nuclear power gives you operational options that you may not otherwise have if you are tied to an AOR after a relatively short time doing high tempo ops.

The economies of scale start to come into play once you know that there will be ongoing demand for the reactors. This may well be a worthwhile investigation. The biggest unknown is the decommissioning costs, which is mostly tied to deciding what you want to do with the high level waste generated. Reprocessing is expensive and "messy", but largely gets rid of it. Holding prior to long-term disposal is cheaper, but takes ages.

 

[chis73]

On the good news front:

the Royal Navy have successfully test-fired a Sea Venom missile from an RN Wildcat helicopter (AW159) for the first time. Apparently it hit the target too (link), which is also good news.

Only about 9 years after the Wildcat entered service . Blame the French I suppose (that's what you usually do). At least I think you've beaten the RNZN, who, to my knowledge, have never fired a Penguin from their Kaman SH-2G(I) Seasprite helicopters (which have been in service about the same length of time).

 

[koxinga]

Not good. The last Astute class, HMS Agincourt, should still be in the building halls.

Huge fire erupts at UK nuclear submarine shipyard

A shipyard building the UK's next-generation nuclear submarines is on fire this morning, sparking a huge emergency response and concern among locals. Two people have been hurt.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[protoplasm]

Not good. The last Astute class, HMS Agincourt, should still be in the building halls.

Huge fire erupts at UK nuclear submarine shipyard

A shipyard building the UK's next-generation nuclear submarines is on fire this morning, sparking a huge emergency response and concern among locals. Two people have been hurt.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The infrastructure to build SSNs/SSBNs just got a greater urgency to expand

 

[StevoJH]

Not good. The last Astute class, HMS Agincourt, should still be in the building halls.

Huge fire erupts at UK nuclear submarine shipyard

A shipyard building the UK's next-generation nuclear submarines is on fire this morning, sparking a huge emergency response and concern among locals. Two people have been hurt.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Not just that, its likely components from the Dreadnought class SSBN's were also in the hall.

The lack of news since the initial reports of fire would imply that significant internal damage occurred inside the build hall.

If Agincourt is a TCL, can an additional PWR2 be produced? Even if at increased cost?

 

[StingrayOZ]

If Agincourt is a TCL, can an additional PWR2 be produced? Even if at increased cost?

The UK is redeveloping its nuclear production facilities. I don't think it can.

Derby: Plans submitted for Rolls-Royce site revamp

Rolls-Royce plans to redevelop and expand its submarine arm's site off Raynesway in Derby.

www.bbc.com

PWR2 is being phased out and the site is being redeveloped. Part of the gap between SSN and SSBN.

 

[John Fedup]

T26 progress in the UK is welcome news and as there is likely lots of communication with RAN and RCN, great for the other future builds which will benefit from the UK experiences.

In brief: Type 26 frigate construction update | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[Sandson41]

Sounds like they lost a lot of time on the internal electrical wiring. Hope we can avoid that. Hope they weren't stopped with other work.

 

[John Fedup]

A speculation (fantasy) article about the Type 83, overly optimistic IMO. Perhaps up to 12,000 tons, maybe up to 128 missiles, and a bigger mast for big radars (CEAFAR) seems expensive for the cash starved UK Treasury. If such a vessel emerges, how many will actually be built, guessing not enough.

Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer project moves forward

 

[Systems Adict]

A speculation (fantasy) article about the Type 83, overly optimistic IMO. Perhaps up to 12,000 tons, maybe up to 128 missiles, and a bigger mast for big radars (CEAFAR) seems expensive for the cash starved UK Treasury. If such a vessel emerges, how many will actually be built, guessing not enough.

Britain’s new Type 83 Destroyer project moves forward

Firstly, I'll start with this quote from the article...

"Remember, the Type 83 destroyer programme is still in the pre-concept phase."

A post like this could be a keyboard warriors wet dream as NOTHING is tied down.

However, you need to look at some practical facts:

#1 - The UK Govt will put out a high level set of requirements:

(e.g. the ship has to be able to maintain a cruising speed of 30 knots with a top speed of 40 / be able to carry 300 strike length VLS / be able to go 12000 miles on a gallon of nitrous oxide / carry x5 Chinooks & x3 VL-22 Ospreys)
..& yes these are absolute balderdash / nigh on unachievable for the purposes of this discussion.

#2 - Companies have to apply to enter the 'competition' & then get the high-level requirements, before they can start drafting a design & presenting an idea. As stated in the article there is NO associated contract. This whole exercise is to test the water to see what they can get.
#3 - There are approx. 15 years BEFORE this vessel will hit the water.
#4 - The RN, while keen to embrace NEW technology, they will not accept a 100% different from standard practices / away from their conventional equipment / training regime / mentality for the design of a ship, so the ship will have guns & missiles they have elsewhere in the fleet.

The political landscape has just taken its first big change in the UK for 15 years. The finances of the country need checked / managed & plans planned out to get the UK thru the next 4 or 5 years & world politics / threats of war with all that that brings will need to be accounted for.

Technology will continue to change/advance & doctrines will be 'modified' to meet the latest requirements.

Purely from my personal thoughts, I would hazard a guess that the ship will be a monohull design, with twin shafts, powered with DIESEL main engines, with large volumes of electrical capability from diesel generators, possibly with additional gas turbines. 130 - 150 m long / 16m beam / 6m depth, weighing in between 12 & 16,000GRT

a 5 inch gun / a 'QUANTITY' of Strike length VLS / DRAGONFire laser (but can't commit to x1 or x2 heads).

I won't commit to CEFAR / the Radar system, or the command system or other weapons / comms equipment, as there are many factors to take into account.

I think I'll leave things there rather than speculate further.
SA

 

[StevoJH]

While we are speculating.

I think it will be at least the size of Type 45 and Type 26. So that means at least 150 metres in length and 20 metres beam.

I think it will have lots of diesel engines (heavy weight down low) to increase stability, possibly with 1-2 MT30’s to supplement. Could be either IEP or CODLOG.

The weapons fit other than a medium gun could go anywhere, though whatever MDBA have in production that can be produced in the UK would likely have an advantage.

Sensors could be anything from a local development, to CEAFAR to a SPY derivative.

 

[downunderblue]

'Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped ... The Defence Secretary confirmed in Parliament today that five RN warships are to be scrapped as a cost-saving measure".

The vessels are listed as:

• HMS Bulwark and Albion (LPD's)
• HMS Northumberland (Type 23 frigate)
• RFA Wave Ruler and RFA Wave Knight (fast fleet tankers)

The commentary seems to varied from angry, to resigned, to I told you so etc.

Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[John Fedup]

'Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped ... The Defence Secretary confirmed in Parliament today that five RN warships are to be scrapped as a cost-saving measure".

The vessels are listed as:

• HMS Bulwark and Albion (LPD's)
• HMS Northumberland (Type 23 frigate)
• RFA Wave Ruler and RFA Wave Knight (fast fleet tankers)

The commentary seems to varied from angry, to resigned, to I told you so etc.

Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I don’t know much about about the UK financial situation but media seems to think it is a problem post Brexit. UK pollies are under pressure wrt domestic needs but the Russians have provided a reason for increased defence spending. If Putin wants a diminished UK defence investment, ending his Ukraine cluster-f$&k would help.

 

[swerve]

The only possible ray of sunshine might be that the money saved could be diverted to other defence areas.

 

[spoz]

The last time there was a proposal to scrap the UK's amphibious ships without teplacement it was a prelude to the Falklands war....

 

[Systems Adict]

The last time there was a proposal to scrap the UK's amphibious ships without replacement it was a prelude to the Falklands war....

... & the Argies are at it again !

This will likely embolden em...

But I think with a typhoon or two that are based down there will be sufficient deterrent...

 

[downunderblue]

The fleet tankers are apparently in reasonable 'nick' so potentially a decent buy for someone who wants them.

 

[Volkodav]

It's realism versus fantasy. The ships are not currently available due to crewing and or materiel state, keeping them is a waste of money.

Conversely, investing in new ships boosts the image of the navy and it's attractiveness as a career. No young person wants to sign up and slum it on a geriatric rust bucket, they want to go to sea on something new and exciting.

 

[koxinga]

The fleet tankers are apparently in reasonable 'nick' so potentially a decent buy for someone who wants them.

I guess that's dear old Brasil then and she can join ex-Ocean. They have been building up their fleet and have a known interest in the Waves