Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by swerve Currently new in service or being procured . . . Aster 30 - 6 Type 45 ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 27 votes, 3.63 average.
Old March 13th, 2010   #3601
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Currently new in service or being procured . . .

Aster 30 -
6 Type 45
4 Horizon

Smart-L/APAR/SM-2 -
4 De Zeven Provincien
3 F124
3 Ivar Huitfeldt

SPY-1/Aegis/SM-2 -
5 F100

Total 25
I don't see the value of separately counting EU strength, you might as well include USN destroyers as part of coalition force.

I can see the UK operating on its own or with the NATO/UN force but not a EU force on its own, The EU countries (except France) only get involved when shamed/bullied into it by the US.

The last time we operated with another European country completely independently of the US must have been Suez? Even the recent Balkan's wars the US had to provide leadership.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010   #3602
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 209
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Which Far Eastern power is going to shut the trade routes down by force? The only such powers are India, Japan & China all 3 are also massive exporters. In 30 years time if the Chinese wanted to bring the West to is knees by cutting access to imports they could just refuse to export in the first place. But then she would not have any income? We do have to plan for the unexpected but not for events that are so unlikely....a US invasion of Canda?
Currently the Far East is pretty stable but you do have Indonesia, the most populace muslim country in the world , with ongoing battles against extremists. Not likely to topple to an anti west regime but you never know. Indonesia and Malaysia are also grating against each other over certain issues such as disputed territories, eg armalat and cultural issues.

Not quite leading to any skirmishes but you never know, future economic chaos, access to food or fuel sources.? Suffice to say a punch up between those countries would at the very least suspend a huge amount of ship bourne trade in the region. It doesnt take long to see an arms race develop between nations.

So, although you are obviously pretty insular in your outlook, you cant rule out a conflict. Just like you cant rule out the stand off between Pakistan and India turning hot, and you may have to run a naval blockade to supply humanitarian aid to whichever side is suffering from the worst humanitarian disaster.

And dont be suprised if China uses political and military coercian to get rights to fossil fuel finds in other peoples territory.



If you think any military conflict is unlikely in that region then why does Australia see the need for such strong armed forces?
Hambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010   #3603
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
Currently the Far East is pretty stable but you do have Indonesia, the most populace muslim country in the world , with ongoing battles against extremists. Not likely to topple to an anti west regime but you never know. Indonesia and Malaysia are also grating against each other over certain issues such as disputed territories, eg armalat and cultural issues.

Not quite leading to any skirmishes but you never know, future economic chaos, access to food or fuel sources.? Suffice to say a punch up between those countries would at the very least suspend a huge amount of ship bourne trade in the region. It doesnt take long to see an arms race develop between nations.

So, although you are obviously pretty insular in your outlook, you cant rule out a conflict. Just like you cant rule out the stand off between Pakistan and India turning hot, and you may have to run a naval blockade to supply humanitarian aid to whichever side is suffering from the worst humanitarian disaster.

And dont be suprised if China uses political and military coercian to get rights to fossil fuel finds in other peoples territory.



If you think any military conflict is unlikely in that region then why does Australia see the need for such strong armed forces?
I don't rule out such conflicts and agree its impossible to predict every senario, after all who would have forseen us returning to Afghanistan. But I couldn't see any of them being UK alone and most of Australian planning is to be part of a larger coalition effort with powerful independent local expeditionary capability within the cover of the RAAF

We do have wider commitments so CV essential and the ability to undertake an independent operation against a medium power, which we hopefully will have. But my point was I can't see a need for a United States of Europe defence force to stand up to the US or replace the US or act independent of the US, can you?

Lets just leave the EU as a great free trade zone, I am a full supporter but I don't think most EU countries see a need for any further political let alone a military agenda.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010   #3604
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 209
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
I don't rule out such conflicts and agree its impossible to predict every senario, after all who would have forseen us returning to Afghanistan. But I couldn't see any of them being UK alone and most of Australian planning is to be part of a larger coalition effort with powerful independent local expeditionary capability within the cover of the RAAF

We do have wider commitments so CV essential and the ability to undertake an independent operation against a medium power, which we hopefully will have. But my point was I can't see a need for a United States of Europe defence force to stand up to the US or replace the US or act independent of the US, can you?

Lets just leave the EU as a great free trade zone, I am a full supporter but I don't think most EU countries see a need for any further political let alone a military agenda.
So if you cant see any of them being Uk alone....and yet CV is essential and the ability to undertake an independent operation against a medium power?

So you cant see us acting alone? but CV is essential for us to act alone? Do those sentences fit?

I think you understimate just how many of the population of the EU would be in favour of more political and military integration.

I wouldnt count on US support as a permanent right. The Iran issue will be a critical test, I cant see the UK electorate buying another poodle act to the US and I dont think the EU nations would fancy a fight either, it could be the US and Israel acting alone, with god knows what political and economic fallout , but if we refuse to help the US,the backlash could be that numerous american senators decide that it genuinely isnt worth spending dollars defending europe and having bases in europe. As the EU swallows up more members eastwards, ie Turkey, belarus, ukraine, the influence inside the EU that the UK will be watered down. Europes oil and gas supply seems to be increasingly dependent on the whims of the Russians whilst those reserves of the middle east could be snapped up by China and the US. The 40 yr life of the CV may see some interesting developments.
Hambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010   #3605
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
So if you cant see any of them being Uk alone....and yet CV is essential and the ability to undertake an independent operation against a medium power?

So you cant see us acting alone? but CV is essential for us to act alone? Do those sentences fit?

I think you understimate just how many of the population of the EU would be in favour of more political and military integration.

I wouldnt count on US support as a permanent right. The Iran issue will be a critical test, I cant see the UK electorate buying another poodle act to the US and I dont think the EU nations would fancy a fight either, it could be the US and Israel acting alone, with god knows what political and economic fallout , but if we refuse to help the US,the backlash could be that numerous american senators decide that it genuinely isnt worth spending dollars defending europe and having bases in europe. As the EU swallows up more members eastwards, ie Turkey, belarus, ukraine, the influence inside the EU that the UK will be watered down. Europes oil and gas supply seems to be increasingly dependent on the whims of the Russians whilst those reserves of the middle east could be snapped up by China and the US. The 40 yr life of the CV may see some interesting developments.
I said we need to retain the ability to act alone against a medium power. We have not supported the US before we didn't send troops ot Vietnam, despite massive pressure to do so. I don't think the US electorate has much stomach for a pre-emptive strike against Iran either.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010   #3606
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
1805, I just dont think you are looking at the true context of the time 1970-1989. There are many interesting questions and what ifs and many errors made by the MOD but you cant get away from basic facts.

There was a cold war raging, we were spending 4%of GDP even at a time of economic chaos, supporting armed forces of 320,000 plus much bigger reserves. Equipment dating from the 1950' and 1960's across all three services was becoming obsolete (eg Sea Cat as you point out was awfull) Look at all three services on this cold war footing.

Just some of the major procurement in the 1970/80 timeframe include MRCA leading to Tornado 220/165 IDS/ADV purchased, dire need for AEW after the Nimrod AEW disaster. Challenger and Warrior for the army. The Navy had a need to replace a steam driven fleet and NATO was faced with a new generation of quieter soviet submarines being pumped out at an alarming rate, the cold facts are that without major resupply from the USA across the Atlantic NATO could not hold out for long. The entire focus of the RN and therefore what ships that you think we should have built, must be seen in that context.

The focus is the North Atlantic, if the Soviet Navy wins that battle and shuts the Atlantic, we are all red. There are airbases in Iceland, UK and Norway so our hyperthetical navy has some degree of aircover but we know thats far from perfect. There was an urgent need for TAS to be deployed, hence the Type 22, hence the expensive refits on 6 Leanders I think. Yes Sea Wolf at the time ws very big and expensive but Sea Cat needed to be replaced, Sea Wolf worked, and still works. Area defence was actually pretty well covered in that N Atlantic context, there were to be 14 Type 42, Bristol and Sea Dart on the Invincibles, so 18 ships to cope with a threat of long range bombers and anti ship cruise missiles that came in at altitude , not sea skimmers.

The decision to bin the carriers had already been made as wrong as it was but that was the way it was. Harrier was added to protect the ASW group from Soviet MPAs and bombers, UK Industry in the 1970s was said to be able to sustain 20 nuclear boats including the deterrent, and at somestage I think we deployed 14SSN, we also needed to replace the Oberons, and had to fund the Upholders, and had the cold war not ended the production run of the Upholders was potentially as big as 17 boats, because we just couldnt get enough SSNs to sea for the Cold War requirement. The submarine fleet into the 1990's without the cold war ending would have been well over 30 modern SSN/SSKs, the surface fleet would have had 18 Sea dart ships, and specialised ASW fleet of the remaining Leanders and Type 22 and its cheaper cousin the T23 in the pipeline. All that at a time with dozens of competing procurement programmes. Within that were different types of ships likely or even needed?, would we need a Type 82 with a type 23 powerplant? dont forget ships last 30 years, we already had hulls in the water.

Faced with the N Atlantic task, what use do you really think a fleet of 80m Spanish Corvettes with no helicopter facilities would have been to the RN, how would those ships have fared in the N Atlantic when you consider the much bigger Type 23 was designed to be worn out in that environment after only 18 years, and it was specifically designed to drag a TAS through the foul N Atlantic seas. The Descubierta type ship would have been bugger all use to the RN mission, bugger all use in the contect of the "war" being fought, fine for Spains mission as part of Nato, not ours, so even if it may have fared OK in Falkland Sound, it would never be realistic. I dont know why you are fascinated with these ships?

Prior to the collapse of the soviet union, I dont think the Navy did badly for the job it was asked to do by the Politicians. Post Soviet Union we saw massive cuts in Options for Change, yet we still had a series of specialised ships with plenty of life left in them, hence I dont think getting something akin to a Burke was really an option in the 1990's and building a new fleet of destroyer with VL Area Defence SAMs may not have crept passed the bean counters.

The pros and cons of dragging a 1960s era liquid fuelled ramjet into the 2000's has already been debated, maybe the UK should have designed our new missile but it would be rocket powered and not called sea dart. Sea Dart has gone as a concept, but UK Industry could have built something but I suspect that would have been done at a huge financial loss and would have few buyers lining up today.
Sorry I missed you post. I wouldn’t disagree with much of your post however I am not sure it is relevant to what I was trying to say. My point was about the need for a sustainable approach to weapons procurement using the AWD replacements as an example. It was less about the ships and systems (including Sea Dart) as the approach to: a) providing the RN with effective ships in a consistent manner without big gaps in capability occurring and b) maintaining a sustainable industrial capability.

My issue with the T45 is not the actual ships, I’m sure they will be very fine ships. Its about the long term structure impact building such expensive technology: in one massive industrial effort with a very high percentage of completely new equipment, in such small numbers, over such a short production timescale and then leaving the technology (apart from upgrades) and then thinking you can just return to the subject in 20-25 years time and start constructing replacements.

If these ships are not top tier ASW and they do have to operate with a T26 how expensive is that. If cost was an issue then at least design in the options/capability so it can be fitted later.

We will probably end up with 18 escorts (6 T45 and 12 T26) a 4 reduction on the current force and that will be if the RN manages to control unit cost growth (not a strength evident to date). Now you can bemoan as much as you like but this is completely in line with the death by a 1000 cuts the RN has not been able to stem over the last c30 years.


My interest in alternatives such as the large Absalon’s and the small ships like the A69s/Descubierta is that I think numbers count and well armed smaller ships are maybe more useful than poorly armed larger ones. If we are in the Littoral game then look at the excellent K130 Braunschweig class maybe add 4000miles to the range and extend the flight deck so it can refuel and rearm a Wildcat and build 25-30 of them?

There is no reason why small ships as part of a team cannot add a great deal of capability. A 2000 ton ship surely could have TAS, I think the 2500t Abukuma class has a TAS and are very similar to the original concept behind the T23

If we are looking at 18 ships with say 30 year life then 6 a decade, 2 helicopters each, we couldn’t afford to put helicopters more on smaller ships anyway so why compromise them by shoehorning in helicopter hangers.

The greatest danger the RN faces is not defence cuts, if they spend more wisely they can get by, it’s not as though there aren’t a few savings opportunities available. It is that the RN becomes irrelevant to the British people. There is obviously huge empathy with the suffering of the Army and to a certain extent this has a positive effect of all the services, but incidents like HMS Cornwall and Wave Knight look clumsy and surprisingly amateurish. The CVs at 65,000t could bring down a great deal of very hostile fire as they do look like a massive increase in capability at just the wrong time.

Last edited by 1805; March 13th, 2010 at 02:45 PM.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3607
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 509
Threads:
1805

This is offtopic, and ofcourse highly political

An European millitary dimension, is not at odds with the US. Hopefiully we will continue to work together. We owe the americans a strong partnner to work with, and if we disregard Rumsfield, GWB&CO, it is also a long standing US policy to surport Europe's integration.

Europe can't continue having to call the white house every time there is smoke in the kitchen. First of all it's shamefull second of all it, in a very real sense, undermines the independence of the european states.

As a Case story:
Former jugoslavia. It weren't pretty.
(I havn't read up on the history so forgive me inaccuracies.)

1st leg
We stood idle as serbs (we are afterall talking about a people with the population of Denmark and 1/3 as rich) fought a war with Croatia and cleansed croatians.

2nd leg
When that war burned out, Bosnia started. A nightmare.
Forces, under the umbrella of The UN tried to stop the fighting and ethnic cleansings, which failed. Not because the UN is bad or the soldiers (many of them brits and french and other Europans) were bad or cowards. But because these forces hadn't the mandate nor the fighting power to give the (serb) agressors a prober beating - which was very much what was called for.
We then had the millitary intervention, lead by the US, which to gether with the EU nation building attempt seems to have worked.

3rd leg (simultanious with parts of 2nd leg)
Since we actually liked the croatians more than the serbs (you know, old habsburg) we made sure, after they had gotten a beating in the first leg, that they had an army. This army was then used to cleanse serbs (Karinja).

4th leg Kosova
Which most remember, and remains a question mark.

Now the point here is EU policies (or rather policies by countries belonging to the EU). A group of EU countries (including a very large one), as I understand it, actively contributed to the dissolution of jugoslav federation (I think that France and the UK, remained more neutral in this aspect).
Now this, policy of dissolution, was probably an OK policy - an historical necessity, if you want, But in my oppinion, when things went out of hand, the fundamental weakness of the, let's call it, majority european policy was displayed: NO force, no strength to back it up. Vice versa, things got out of hand because there were no deterent (The serbs called the bluff and went for war).

Now, why were there no Force, no strength behind this, let's call it, majority policy.
Imho, 1st of all the millitaries weren't well equiped or organised to solve the matter at hand.
2nd of all disunity (France and UK and others weren't, to my understanding, quite on the boat"). and 3rd of all: History. A couple of countries in europe still have limited space for manuvering due to some regretfull "incidents" some 60-70 years ago.

What I think we should learn of this is:

We (europeans) need to have a converging foreign policy. We has somehow to sit down and decide for a policy to deal with such matters. Having some countries do this, other countries do that, maybe even the opposite, and yet another group doing nothing simply don't work. How exactly such policy can be made, I will leave to people who are wiser than me, I will just note the need.

We need to have a millitary capacity to back up the policies which we make, in a reasonable extent. Now it might be that one single country can deliver this millitary capacity, I doubt it, so we have to work together. Now this could be an (independent) European pillar wihin NATO, or an EU army or " West union" forces or something else.
What doesn't work is that we have to call the US when things has to be done, and thus become part of US (interior) politics. And displays our weakness which invites the declaration: insignificant.

After all the potential of the world's largest economical block, 500M medium rich-to rich people should amount to more.

To bring it more back on topic, that's also why I think that an European Navy like the RN, should in a much higher degree integrate and contribute to the formation (be that in an allience structure or what ever) of a common european force, a force to deliver the ultimate argument behind, imho, not a desireable but a necessary convergent european foreign&security policy. And while we are add it, european navies should contribute to a strong european defense industry, not castrate such an industry, by these horrific national-centric-pettyfull-homegrown-industrial-policies who do more harm than good. I put this to you: NO European national state has the volumne to, in isolation, compete with the millitary-industrial potential of f.ex. a much larger american defense market or the future Chineese/indian etc. We will and are loosing a national-centric game, we have to bring volumne by adding our national markets together, and when (not if - because it's a necessity) we do that, we atleast have the prerequisite of volumne inorder to compete.
Palnatoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3608
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 509
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
I don't see the value of separately counting EU strength, you might as well include USN destroyers as part of coalition force.

I can see the UK operating on its own or with the NATO/UN force but not a EU force on its own, The EU countries (except France) only get involved when shamed/bullied into it by the US.

The last time we operated with another European country completely independently of the US must have been Suez? Even the recent Balkan's wars the US had to provide leadership.
"The EU countries (except France) only get involved when shamed/bullied into it by the US."

Neither true nor very respectfull. There are a number countries that do contribute relative to size, ofcourse. Though what you can say is that there are a number of european countries that avoids war when possible- imho that's probably because they have achived a higher level of civilization than us, grunts.
Palnatoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3609
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 209
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Sorry I missed you post. I wouldn’t disagree with much of your post however I am not sure it is relevant to what I was trying to say. My point was about the need for a sustainable approach to weapons procurement using the AWD replacements as an example. It was less about the ships and systems (including Sea Dart) as the approach to: a) providing the RN with effective ships in a consistent manner without big gaps in capability occurring and b) maintaining a sustainable industrial capability.

My issue with the T45 is not the actual ships, I’m sure they will be very fine ships. Its about the long term structure impact building such expensive technology: in one massive industrial effort with a very high percentage of completely new equipment, in such small numbers, over such a short production timescale and then leaving the technology (apart from upgrades) and then thinking you can just return to the subject in 20-25 years time and start constructing replacements.

If these ships are not top tier ASW and they do have to operate with a T26 how expensive is that. If cost was an issue then at least design in the options/capability so it can be fitted later.

We will probably end up with 18 escorts (6 T45 and 12 T26) a 4 reduction on the current force and that will be if the RN manages to control unit cost growth (not a strength evident to date). Now you can bemoan as much as you like but this is completely in line with the death by a 1000 cuts the RN has not been able to stem over the last c30 years.


My interest in alternatives such as the large Absalon’s and the small ships like the A69s/Descubierta is that I think numbers count and well armed smaller ships are maybe more useful than poorly armed larger ones. If we are in the Littoral game then look at the excellent K130 Braunschweig class maybe add 4000miles to the range and extend the flight deck so it can refuel and rearm a Wildcat and build 25-30 of them?

There is no reason why small ships as part of a team cannot add a great deal of capability. A 2000 ton ship surely could have TAS, I think the 2500t Abukuma class has a TAS and are very similar to the original concept behind the T23

If we are looking at 18 ships with say 30 year life then 6 a decade, 2 helicopters each, we couldn’t afford to put helicopters more on smaller ships anyway so why compromise them by shoehorning in helicopter hangers.

The greatest danger the RN faces is not defence cuts, if they spend more wisely they can get by, it’s not as though there aren’t a few savings opportunities available. It is that the RN becomes irrelevant to the British people. There is obviously huge empathy with the suffering of the Army and to a certain extent this has a positive effect of all the services, but incidents like HMS Cornwall and Wave Knight look clumsy and surprisingly amateurish. The CVs at 65,000t could bring down a great deal of very hostile fire as they do look like a massive increase in capability at just the wrong time.
I see you have been playing LEGO shipbuilding again, take a 90m corvette with a 7 day endurance, then add 4000 mile range which must equate to several hundred tonnes of fuel capacity inside the hull, then extend the flightdeck, maybe add aTAS you are prbably then looking at a frigate sized ship of 110m plus, in which case how will that be cheaper than T26 by any margin to allow a 25-30 build?? The RN, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy are all looking at major surface combatants in the range of 5000-6000 tonnes, now I accept all those naval professionals all lack your insight but I cant see your innovations being snapped up.

Absalons are a compromise. A 200 man force of marines is still going to need light and medium vehicles, support weapons and a huge supply train. From looking at the Absalon design, does it not need a port,?or at least a substantial jetty to embark its troops? It hasnt a dock and no landing craft, only boats, so whilst it could launch a small raid or boarding party, it couldnt land troops over the beach, a hybrid RO-RO frigate with limited amphob capability. We have plenty of amphibs with LCVP, LCU and hovercraft as well as helos to insert and support forces. An Absalon has 1/5 th of the vehicle lane metres of a Bay, it could ship 7 MBT's to the Bays 24 but the Bay could land the tanks by a LCU, the Absalon couldnt. In fact building a new Sir Galahad sized LSL in a foreign yard would be an attractive way to add the capacity to move small numbers of troops.
The Absalon is a good choice for some, offers very little to the RN in my opinion, it has good helo and armanent capacity but no more than we could get on a well designed T26.

If the RN gets 6 T45, 10 T26 ASW and 8 T26 GP, it would operate 18-20 ships at any one time, there are more than enough Merlins and Lynx to go round, very rarely would a ship fly with both helos in peacetime.

Finally, until the T26 design is finalised, we wont know what technology it shares with T45,CV upgraded T23. I think you would be suprised, the combat data systems will be of the same family, as will the sensor fit eg SAMPSON giving some of its DNA to Artisan which will fit CV, T23 and T26, probably versions of electric drive using RR turbines, the same bolt on weapons eg Harpoon, Phalanx, Caam (in a bolt on fit?) I think the pathways the RN has planned are pretty joined up, for the first time in decades commonality across sytems is being designed in from the start.
Hambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3610
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 509
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambo View Post

Absalons are a compromise. A 200 man force of marines is still going to need light and medium vehicles, support weapons and a huge supply train. From looking at the Absalon design, does it not need a port,?or at least a substantial jetty to embark its troops? It hasnt a dock and no landing craft, only boats, so whilst it could launch a small raid or boarding party, it couldnt land troops over the beach, a hybrid RO-RO frigate with limited amphob capability. We have plenty of amphibs with LCVP, LCU and hovercraft as well as helos to insert and support forces. An Absalon has 1/5 th of the vehicle lane metres of a Bay, it could ship 7 MBT's to the Bays 24 but the Bay could land the tanks by a LCU, the Absalon couldnt. In fact building a new Sir Galahad sized LSL in a foreign yard would be an attractive way to add the capacity to move small numbers of troops.
The Absalon is a good choice for some, offers very little to the RN in my opinion, it has good helo and armanent capacity but no more than we could get on a well designed T26.
You are wrong about the ABS being a compromise of design. It's a ship designed to fullfill a broad range of roles, and in doing so the designers have comed up with what can be considered a new concept.
The flex deck has many other uses than "transport". And it's odd to compare an ABS to a bay class. The Danish navy do not have amphibious cababilities and strategical transport is taken care of by the German-Danish ARK project. So the bay class is a world apart.

The Abs is a ship that can do transport, or can embark a force for f.ex. airborne insertion, or can lay mines, or can be a hospital ship, or can be a command ship (housing a substancial staff) but it can also be a warship. It carries harpoons, ESSM, anti ASW torpedoes, a heavy gun etc. It's limited in the combat role by it's RCS, which is negatively affected by the height of the ship. Though I would assume that a ship which has undergone extensive RCS reduction work, like the ABS has, still has a lower RCS than the vintage ships that RN plans to operate for some years in the future. But have no data.

Incidentially an ABS, as it is, can fullfill many of the roles that the C1&C2 specs call for(Infact it fullfills the C2 role, as far as I can see) . It's however not, as is, an ASW ship or minehunter. I don't know whether the platform is well suited for those roles, hence I don't know whether it feasable to build a variant suitable for f.ex. ASW.

A talk about the Abs class, isn't complete without mentioning the very low price tag that these ships come with.

Last edited by Palnatoke; March 14th, 2010 at 05:01 PM.
Palnatoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3611
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 509
Threads:
Just for fun sake;

Quote:
C1 was envisaged as a multimission combatant, of about 6,000 tons displacement according to Janes. It is optimised for war fighting and would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group, offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force.

C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort.

(from Navy matters)
So let's build something like an ABS class ship to do the C2 Role.

Let's make a derived design variant of the abs: Remove the "extra" flex deck, double the engine (instead of 2X we will have 4X the same disel engine) throw in a huge radar, throw in some extra electronics, build a VLS launcher into the thing and we have ourself an AAW frigate (this is the Huitfeldt class AAW frigate (in construction)).

Let's make another derived design variant of the abs: Remove the "extra" flex deck, double the engine but make these engines very silent. Throw in some extra electronics, possibly build a VLS launcher into the thing, (for ASROC etc), throw in huge sonar, throw in TAS, Throw in a helicopter suitable for ASW and we have ourself an ASW frigate.

Ofcourse the original design," the ABS" has to have the basic properties to be inherrited by the variants. F.ex. it has to be possible to build in the VLS or that the hull etc is sufficiently silent for making it worthwhile to silence the engines for the ASW role. etc.

Which ships we throw the cruisemissiles on, or the heavy gun, we can decide on as needed.

On the upside, you design one ship, and spawn variants that has large similiarity - reduing comlexity of fleet, hence saving money.

One might call it a LEGO approch, as once educated in engineering science, I happen to think that LEGO is a great concept.
Palnatoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3612
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
[QUOTE=Hambo;192611]I see you have been playing LEGO shipbuilding again, take a 90m corvette with a 7 day endurance, then add 4000 mile range which must equate to several hundred tonnes of fuel capacity inside the hull, then extend the flightdeck, maybe add aTAS you are prbably then looking at a frigate sized ship of 110m plus, in which case how will that be cheaper than T26 by any margin to allow a 25-30 build?? The RN, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy are all looking at major surface combatants in the range of 5000-6000 tonnes, now I accept all those naval professionals all lack your insight but I cant see your innovations being snapped up.

The whole modular concept of Meko, Stanflex, Sigma etc has rather passed you by?

The fact many Navies now regard a c6000t ASW ship as the answer, when 30 years ago it was a 4500t twin Helicopter ships, then they change minds and went for 3500t with single helicopter to get the number up, who was right. USN has a general purpose in Burkes.

Andrew Gordon in his excellent work Rules of the Game, consider there to be flaw in military planning than the futher they get from real combat the more likely they become removed from the learning of war. Didn't the RN resist the convoy system in WW1, did it not neglect ASW and place to much faith in ASDIC, Sea Slug, Sea Cat. Resisted the short fat ship concept but came round eventually (T45) Yes they get it right more than wrong: Gas Turbine, MATCH, Squid most of the time. An confident RN should always be up for sound critical apprasial and innovation


Absalons are a compromise. A 200 man force of marines is still going to need light and medium vehicles, support weapons and a huge supply train. From looking at the Absalon design, does it not need a port,?or at least a substantial jetty to embark its troops? It hasnt a dock and no landing craft, only boats, so whilst it could launch a small raid or boarding party, it couldnt land troops over the beach, a hybrid RO-RO frigate with limited amphob capability. We have plenty of amphibs with LCVP, LCU and hovercraft as well as helos to insert and support forces. An Absalon has 1/5 th of the vehicle lane metres of a Bay, it could ship 7 MBT's to the Bays 24 but the Bay could land the tanks by a LCU, the Absalon couldnt. In fact building a new Sir Galahad sized LSL in a foreign yard would be an attractive way to add the capacity to move small numbers of troops.
The Absalon is a good choice for some, offers very little to the RN in my opinion, it has good helo and armanent capacity but no more than we could get on a well designed T26.

I never said get rid of all the Bays relace some with capability in a ABS/T45/T26 type design ship would make it more relevant and useful.

If the RN gets 6 T45, 10 T26 ASW and 8 T26 GP, it would operate 18-20 ships at any one time, there are more than enough Merlins and Lynx to go round, very rarely would a ship fly with both helos in peacetime.

Do you really think in 10 years time we will be operating 22 escort ships, has the RN ever held the decline in escort numbers for any length of time, particularly when these ships are growing in cost/size? If the RN plans solely on this basis then they are doing exactly what the select committee accused them of.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3613
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,472
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke View Post
You are wrong about the ABS being a compromise of design. It's a ship designed to fullfill a broad range of roles, and in doing so the designers have comed up with what can be considered a new concept.
The flex deck has many other uses than "transport". And it's odd to compare an ABS to a bay class. The Danish navy do not have amphibious cababilities and strategical transport is taken care of by the German-Danish ARK project. So the bay class is a world apart.....
I agree entirely, & I've told 1805 this, more than once. But he won't take any notice. Despite being told about your ro-ros, he insists that Absalon & Esbern Snare are your transport fleet, & that they are also amphibious ships.

He thinks we can replace the amphibious & transport capability of half of the Bays by building a fleet of Absalon-like ships. He's failed to explain how he expects them to carry out amphibious landings, land heavy equipment without quays, etc., but he still carries on. They're expected to do this while also providing our ASW & land attack capability. He hasn't explained how they'll find time to do anything except transport (the Bays are busy), but still he carries on . . .

BTW, I like the Absalon concept a lot. The deployment to Somalia has demonstrated how perfectly suited to that role it is, & for a small navy, I think it is ideal, & a lot of navies other than Denmarks should seriously consider buying a couple. But I don't think that it's necessarily a good ship for larger navies, though certain elements of the concept could be copied, e.g. for the RNs C2. I think an unmodified Absalon could do the C2 role, but C2 doesn't need the full flex deck. Some flexible space, yes - but a lot less. The RN has other ships which can (& do) perform some of the roles the flex deck is useful for. Therefore, a somewhat less flexible ship with a greater degree of commonality to the C1 type would be preferable for the RN. For smaller navies - yes, buy Absalon.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3614
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 209
Threads:
1805, So lets see, the trend is for bigger ships. Im not quite sure what your tonnage figures equate to but in the case of the RN its 2500 for a leander, upto 5300 for a stretched T22, down to 4,200 for a T23 and upto 6000 for the proposed T26, so an upwards trend and not a fleet of 80m corvettes, able to refuel and rearm Wildcats, with something "like" a Kashtan, but hey we will have 25-30 of them...until they all get sunk by the exported Indian built SSN's based on the Astute technology that you have sold them.

So we wake up with a navy of small corvette "type" ships without helo hangars, cos we will surely never have enough helicopters anyway, they will lack the range or blue water capability we need, but we can do without that as numbers count, and as every other navy will buy them (clearly) we will be in a good position to defend Britains interests whilst being able to act independently to take on a medium sized opponent even though there doesnt appear to be any likely opponents in 1805-world, but if there were we should only rely on America because our European partners are lily livered cowards???

Oh I forgot the innovative 25,000 tonne LPD's with SAMPSON, and I forgot to type in bold print, sorry.

And yes, I think the disposal dates of the T22 will conincide with T26 so we will operate 20 plus escorts in 2020.
Hambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 14th, 2010   #3615
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,639
Threads:
Actually, wasnt one of the main roles of the Absalon class's transport deck to provide storage for mines to support their roles as Baltic Mine layers?

As for Australia, the current and projected forces available to it should be able to outgun any airforce in our region except possibly Singapore until you get as far as India, China and Japan, which are outside mutual fighter range without massive refueling support or forward bases.

And I'd also like to remind people of the FPDA of which both Australia and the UK are partners, along with New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. These give access to bases in both Singapore and Malaysia in an emergency situation.

Go RMAF Butterworth!
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.