The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Definitely true, SNAFU that's for sure.

In another obscure media site it specifically mentions - unlike this link - that they'll use the ToT to manufacture the same vessel in the future :rolleyes:

Anyway, in a different direction, HMS Ambush has been handed over to the RN

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/6845

ON A bitterly cold, grey winter’s day on the Clyde, an occasion to fill the heart of submariners with warmth – metaphorically speaking.

Wearing the trademark woollen white pullover of his Service, AB George Sherwin raises the White Ensign for the first time on his £1bn nuclear submarine.

The second of the Silent Service’s new hunter-killer submarines is now officially in Royal Navy hands after being formally transferred to its charge by builders BAE Systems in her home base of Faslane.
Click to expand...

Good to see it happen, Astute will be operational soon & hopefully won't be too long before we see Artful rolled out.
 
The author of UKACF is reporting the deal is for the 3 ex-Brunei corvettes, nothing more exiting than that. At least it's a sale I guess, even if it is for 20% of what they were due to be sold for :rolleyes:

Rather annoying when some countries call a ship a corvette and others a frigate. Things get lost in translation.

More positive noises from Aus in regards to the T26

During their trip, in one of the first examples of the closer relationship, Mr Hammond visited the Australian Naval Base and BAE Systems shipyard in Perth where they discussed a range of issues relating to the sustainment and development of Australia's submarine programme and future shipbuilding.

The Defence Secretary and Minister Smith agreed to work together on the prospect of collaboration on Australia's future frigate requirements and the UK's planned Type 26 Global Combat Ship.

With both Britain and Australia due to build new frigates in the coming years, the Defence Secretary agreed with his Australian counterpart to explore the possibility of co-operation over mutual design work for the Royal Navy’s new Type 26 Global Combat Ship – a design that could meet the needs of the Royal Australian Navy.
Click to expand...

Roll on 2015 and lets see soem proper specs, hopefully it'll wrangle some firm orders :rolleyes:
 
Interesting note from the Australian statement on this..

"We agreed to give fresh impetus to efforts to identify the scope for increased defence procurement cooperation. In particular, we called for an early joint report on the possibilities for mutually beneficial collaboration on Australia’s future frigate and the UK’s global combat ship. We will also examine the possibility of collaboration in respect of Australia’s submarine capability."

Very early days but at least we're talking.

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – AUKMIN 2013 Communiqué
 
Yeah it's interesting to hear, but we'll be of limited help. Heh, DE Astute anyone? :D Just kidding.

I've been reading around and there appears to be the interesting idea that IFwe manage to flog the T26 to Aus then there's the possibility of NZ coming in on the deal too.

But still at least now we know a few more things, T26 is specified for Mk41 (real question being is 24 enough?) & T26 is compatable with CEAFAR gear

There's murmurs going about now that when Edinburgh comes back from the South Atlantic, that'll be it for the Type 42s. Duncan'll join the fleet and then the handover will be complete.
 
On the sub side, I'm guessing components and integration rather than hulls.

The Japanese seem to have a solid lock on long range, quiet diesels from discussions on the RAN thread. We might flog 'em an optronics mast or a TAS etc.

Type 26, well, that 24 cell count is likely to be easily added to with a few more after you've subtracted the weight of the redundant CAMM launchers. And at this stage, the design is malleable - adding in a double row of eight behind and on the same level as the gun for instance, after shortening the raised deck..or similar ideas.

I'd imagine that whatever Australia buys, NZ will purchase as well - the synergy about buying something your more powerful and friendly neighbour uses is too attractive.
 
I would be a little cautious about NZ buying T26, or anything in that class of ship.
When it came time to replace their 4 frigates 20 years ago, they were initially included in the ANZAC frigate program for 4. They soon decided on 2, and there was a LOT of discussion from the government and Parliament as to whether 2 ships of such "high end" capability were appropriate for NZ. My impression was they were by then stuck with buying 2, so could not back out.
Since then all western navies have reduced the size of their fleet when buying replacements.
So I wouldn't be at all surprised if NZ gave replacing frigates a total miss, and went for large patrol ship or 2, not a warship as such.
But I am not in any position to know - just surmising and using history.
John
 
Last edited:
As keen as the UK is to send a few T26s south I think they will most likely be disappointed.

The RAN is now becoming a Spanish hulled/US systems fleet (besides local builds). Commonality would favour additional F100s over T26 unless they turn out to be lemons.

The Kiwis seem less pacifist than 10 years ago but budgets aren't going up any time soon. My money would be for them to grab a couple of OCVs when that production starts.
If they did go for a full sized Frigate they would be more likely to favour the T26 than the RAN but by then may be under pressure to opt for a pair of Aust-built non-AEGIS F100s.
 
RobWilliams said:
I was just thinking about that phrase, it seems a bit odd that the Indonesians would be interested in ToT from such an old ship and then use that to build ships like them in the future when the oppertunity to be involved in the T26 exists?

Strange, i'm not getting too hyped up about it until I see it reported elsewhere.

Would be nice to think that the T26 has bagged an export customer, Hammond is in Australia trying to promote her I think.
Click to expand...

Maybe a hull and habitability similarities, but propulsion, combat system, fire control systems, sensors, EW and weapons are going to be the sticking point.

By the time you've added a Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun plus magazine, Mk 41, ESSM, SM-2 / SM-6, facilities for the MH-60R, MU-90 torpedos, an Australian spec'd combat system, sensor fit, C4ISREW fit, RHIB fit and so on, how much "T26" will be left over?
 
ADMk2 said:
Maybe a hull and habitability similarities, but propulsion, combat system, fire control systems, sensors, EW and weapons are going to be the sticking point.

By the time you've added a Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun plus magazine, Mk 41, ESSM, SM-2 / SM-6, facilities for the MH-60R, MU-90 torpedos, an Australian spec'd combat system, sensor fit, C4ISREW fit, RHIB fit and so on, how much "T26" will be left over?
Click to expand...
Aye - there's the rub.
And all of those things will already fit into an AWD hull - with similar or the same running gear. And we already know how to build those.
So what's the point of the T26?
 
Milne Bay said:
Aye - there's the rub.
And all of those things will already fit into an AWD hull - with similar or the same running gear. And we already know how to build those.
So what's the point of the T26?
Click to expand...


Hi

I would suggest that the reason would be ASW, type 26 should be at least as good as the 23.

I must confess to being curious re the submarine comments, Australia would be one of very few countries I could see us selling Astute to if they could get real over the nuclear propulsion issue.:D

Deepsixteen
 
deepsixteen said:
Hi

I would suggest that the reason would be ASW, type 26 should be at least as good as the 23.

I must confess to being curious re the submarine comments, Australia would be one of very few countries I could see us selling Astute to if they could get real over the nuclear propulsion issue.:D

Deepsixteen
Click to expand...

There's ample discussion in the RAN thread about why we won't be getting SSN's and you should read that.
The most compelling reason is however, that we do not and will not have an industrial nuclear capability or expertise. The irony is though, that if we ever battled climate change with our heads and not our hearts, we should be a major player.

The Collins class combat system is almost identical to the Virginia SSGN's and our relationship in subs is so close that it would be insane to even think about Astutes.
There are plenty of supporters for leasing Virginias on the thread with very cogent arguments for it if the RAN ever chose to ease into the Nuc sub business.

I think others here have called it correctly, the cooperation spoken of by our respective ministers is most likely to involve planning, design and manufacturing assistance for our next generation of SSG's.
 
ADMk2 said:
Maybe a hull and habitability similarities, but propulsion, combat system, fire control systems, sensors, EW and weapons are going to be the sticking point.

By the time you've added a Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm gun plus magazine, Mk 41, ESSM, SM-2 / SM-6, facilities for the MH-60R, MU-90 torpedos, an Australian spec'd combat system, sensor fit, C4ISREW fit, RHIB fit and so on, how much "T26" will be left over?
Click to expand...

If we can defray some of our design costs, keep our ship design capability alive, maybe flog a few bits then all's good I guess ? There's no chance of home build, or of selling Artisan/CAMM, but maybe engines, components, fittings,and it might give legs to the design for future export orders to other countries.

It'd be a good chance to demonstrate integration work, and it'd be good for both countries as Australia can get in at an early point in design and get a lot of customisation built in from the get go.

We'll see - we thought we had Canada in the bag and that went south :)
 
Milne Bay said:
Aye - there's the rub.
And all of those things will already fit into an AWD hull - with similar or the same running gear. And we already know how to build those.
So what's the point of the T26?
Click to expand...

Type 26 will be a much more modern design with scope for design input and it'll be *fecking* quiet for ASW work. Pulling the AWD hull over would be straight forward and easy but from at least some comments on the RAN thread, it might be an awkward compromise.
 
ASSAIL said:
There's ample discussion in the RAN thread about why we won't be getting SSN's and you should read that.
The most compelling reason is however, that we do not and will not have an industrial nuclear capability or expertise. The irony is though, that if we ever battled climate change with our heads and not our hearts, we should be a major player.

The Collins class combat system is almost identical to the Virginia SSGN's and our relationship in subs is so close that it would be insane to even think about Astutes.
There are plenty of supporters for leasing Virginias on the thread with very cogent arguments for it if the RAN ever chose to ease into the Nuc sub business.

I think others here have called it correctly, the cooperation spoken of by our respective ministers is most likely to involve planning, design and manufacturing assistance for our next generation of SSG's.
Click to expand...

Hi Assail

Seems the Smile inserted at the end of the line has gone AWOL new someone would bite. :D

Been reading the site for years and yes read all the comments but not bothered to comment on RAN problems (we have enough of our own) it just seems more than a little daft to continue pretending that you can adequately cover the vast area you need to with conventional SM’s IMHO.
Not saying the RAN would buy Astute or any SSN just saying that it is one of very few countries we would sell to and yes I had noticed you buy American and suspect they have SSN's like Astute that come with reactors that do not need refuelling.

Deepsixteen
 
Last edited:
There is an intense debate going on the future of RN SSBN.

My own idea would be why not build 11 boats alike each carrying 8 ICBM's and the rest being conventional missiles like Tomahawk.The advantages are:

1. Since it is 11 instead of 4 the chances of hunting down All 11 wil be considerably less

2. Uniform design means fewer design constraints as opposed to having two separate designs and also the procurement and throughlife support costs can be calculated more realistically

3. 11 hulls intead of 4 may also reduce the procurement and maintenance costs

On the down side we need more security since compromising even 1 will have serious consequences.But then again even trying to sabotage an astute class submarine is close to impossible.
 
The whole fleet becomes nuclear armed or potentially nuclear armed. This has considerable implications for crewing, security, & deployment.
 
swerve said:
The whole fleet becomes nuclear armed or potentially nuclear armed. This has considerable implications for crewing, security, & deployment.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the cost of procurement would massively increase as well because instead of 7 large hunter killers and 4 Massive SSBNs you have 11 SSBNs that are smaller than the 4 you would be buying, but 7 hulls that are much larger than the hunter killer hulls they would replace. Overall the displacement of the fleet would almost certainly be much larger for the same number of hulls.

With the recent publicity that the USN SSBNs won't be multi-rolled on cost grounds I would imagine the unit cost of these 11 SSBN/SSNs would be eye-wateringly expensive.
 
Last edited:
Total non-starter, as you'd have to build a fleet of 16Kt size boats, all equipped with common missile compartments. SSBN's are very different beasties than attack boats and there's no way I'd fancy taking a Successor inshore with Chalfont attached for instance.

Add to which, there are several large areas of the world where it's poor form to take a nuclear armed submarine (the entire South Atlantic for one) so there'd have to be some protocol to demonstrate they weren't so armed for those places.

Impractical on many levels I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top