The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Consideration as a possibility, yes - but it's not (at least publicly) been specified as the chosen gun, any more than 76 mm, & nor has the top speed been specified as 24 knots.

I have no more knowledge than you, or anyone else, about exactly what we'll get, but I'm not going to assume that it's what the RFI says is the minimum requirement, across the board.

The drawing published by the MoD specifies under 'Adaptable' (i.e.what the ship should be capable of taking) 'Medium range gun >76mm capable of Naval Gunfire Support'. Given the available naval guns, I think it's safe to assume that '>76mm' means 127mm. 'Adaptable' is additional to the 'Core' required for the RN, but the ship must be capable of taking it.

Sounds like the RN is building a (slightly bigger) Anzac frigate. Big gun frigate, with a decent hanger and aviation and some self defence. Wack on harpoon and its a decent combo.

The proof is in the pudding, I am sure smaller navies will be watching this one closely.

76mm is a capable round. But going all 5" is a better bet, particularly for the RN.

 

[alexsa]

Sounds like the RN is building a (slightly bigger) Anzac frigate. Big gun frigate, with a decent hanger and aviation and some self defence. Wack on harpoon and its a decent combo.

The proof is in the pudding, I am sure smaller navies will be watching this one closely.

76mm is a capable round. But going all 5" is a better bet, particularly for the RN.

As noted by others if Artisan and CAMM are carried over it will be every bit as capable of self defense as the T23. I cannot imagine they will go with the Mk110 57mm (noting it is not in inventory) but this gun has been fitted to the Halifax for years as well as the LCS and is a capable weapon.


Basically, except for the ASW capability, it should (if fitted with the envisaged equipment) be a one for one swap with the T23 ...... if the RN get more than 5 (and the gear is carried across or new gear is fitted) it will be a reasonable outcome.

 

[Blackshoe]

Congrats to the RN

Congrats to the RN for their amazing breakthrough in marine engineering technology for the Type 26. Mach 3 in a frigate is nothing short of astounding.

 

[Redlands18]

Congrats to the RN for their amazing breakthrough in marine engineering technology for the Type 26. Mach 3 in a frigate is nothing short of astounding.

Dead cert now for Sea 5000 if we could have it in the South China sea in less than 2 hours.

 

[John Fedup]

Congrats to the RN for their amazing breakthrough in marine engineering technology for the Type 26. Mach 3 in a frigate is nothing short of astounding.

Wow, the MT30 must have gotten one frigging hell of an upgrade!nfloorl:

 

[ADMk2]

Congrats to the RN for their amazing breakthrough in marine engineering technology for the Type 26. Mach 3 in a frigate is nothing short of astounding.

Yes, yes, very impressive. But what I want to know, is that in reheat or via super-cruising? Cause you know, it’s range will be affected...

:rotfl

 

[Volkodav]

Sounds like the RN is building a (slightly bigger) Anzac frigate. Big gun frigate, with a decent hanger and aviation and some self defence. Wack on harpoon and its a decent combo.

The proof is in the pudding, I am sure smaller navies will be watching this one closely.

76mm is a capable round. But going all 5" is a better bet, particularly for the RN.

The irony is the RAN were a big fan of the Type 23 wanting them as a replacement for the River Class DEs and when this project was recast as a patrol frigate instead of an ASW frigate they still short listed a modified / cheaper Type 23 variant in the final three contenders.. So in fact the Type 23 (in a "for but not with" configuration) came very close to being the ANZAC class.

 

[StobieWan]

In a way, this Type 23 Part II - Type 22 was very expensive to build and run, something cheaper was wanted and 23 was what we got.
Fast forward a bit and it looks familiar, two classes of ship.


I'm impressed by the news coverage, they're so wrong it defies mere incompetence

 

[ngatimozart]

I've bought this across from the RAN thread because it is highly relevant here. You need to read Part 1 before reading Muar's post, which I've copied and pasted in full below.

The British Royal Navy – Road to Salvation? Part I

Muar River #329539
I nearly choked when reading "The British Royal Navy Road To Salvation? Part 2" in Navy magazine.
This article is written by Jonathan Foreman and I note that the Editor of the RN's Naval Review has requested Part 1 about the state of the RN be included on their website. Note the Editor strongly agrees with Part 1 of which I don't have a copy..

I am interested In your thoughts on what is written below (which is not the entire article). I apologise for typos but am very interested on comments on the Type 26 as it relates to the future frigate programme.

"The RN's leadership does bear responsibility for the fact that British warships tend to be conceived like the Type 45 destroyer without proper consideration of financial realities (in the likelihood of severely underfunded defence budgets.

One result of this attitude is warships that are progressively stripped of their planned capabilities in order to save money during the long process of planning and construction, until their final fitness for purpose is dubious at best.

This tendency to plan new classes of ships as if money were no object, as if the fleet were still the size it was during the Falklands War is linked to a parallel failure to take into account the obvious reality that major surface combatants commissioned for a small or very small navy need to be especially versatile.

Common sense dictates that the few destroyers and frigates fielded by a mini navy should be genuine general purpose warships with a speciality, not specialist ships whose designs make minimal concessions to the reality that you don't always get to fight the enemy you want in the way you plan to.

The Type 45 air warfare destroyer is often proclaimed to be the best in the world by the RN and its cheerleaders in the British media are a case in point. They may well field the best anti aircraft and anti missile systems available to any navy. But in almost every other respect the Type 45s are inferior to contemporary competitors around the world and pathetically unforgivably vulnerable to submarine and surface threats unless escorted by other vessels.

Indeed, even if one discounts the teething problems of the Type 45's engines and the design flaw that means the Daring class ships do not produce enough electric power to run their advanced systems while on the move, the Type 45 looks troubling like a TARPUS boat, technically advanced but practically useless, or as rather as Iain Ballentine has pointed out, an analogue of the 1930s battlecruisers which proved impotent against big gunned battleships like the Bismarck.

To justify the frequently made claim that the Type 45 is superior to the latest America Arleigh Burkes and their derivatives, the RN and its media boosters necessarily imagine conflict situations in which the Type 45 will invariably always be accompanied by other vessels with appropriate capabilities., and therefore will be able to survive and win despite its inability to defend itself against other warships, submarines and shore batteries (It goes almost without saying that no other major navy and certainly no serious naval thinkers anywhere in the world outside the UK that single purpose/otherwise defenceless warships like the Type 45 are a sensible idea). In other words, the current philosophy behind the Type 45 depends on a cosy fantasy of future naval warfare.

Claims made and export expectations for the long delayed Type 26 frigate may be similarly deluded. Although its boosters claim it will be superior to France's FREMM frigates, thus negating the fact the French Navy has more ships than the RN, the FREMMS are already in service whilst the Type 26 won't be delivered until 2023 at the earliest. Moreover, its manufacturers have already found a bigger export market (Greece, Egypt, Morocco and possibly Canada and Australia) than any British warship in the last three decades, suggesting that such confidence may be misplaced.

Just the fact that British naval shipbuilding has not had a major export success since the Leander class frigates of the 1970s ought theoretically to have prompted both the RN and successive governments to consider the wisdom of reflexively buying British which in practice has meant buying from BAE systems."
(End of Muar's Post).

In a social media group to which I belong one of the old salts, who lives in the UK at the moment, said that he was at a recent function where he had a conversation with a RN officer, who is mid level in rank structure. This officer stated that in order to crew the QE carriers they are laying up other vessels and drafting their crews to the carriers. He added that this is so in order for the RN to look good in the media and public's eyes. He said that they are having trouble retaining Petty Officers and Leading Hands, with them leaving far quicker than the RN is capable of replacing them with experienced hands.

 

[John Fedup]

With regard to your last paragraph, the crewing issue applies to the RCN as well. Given the state of both navies, it is no wonder why the RAN is an appealing alternative (along with the climate) for personnel looking for a change.

Two large carriers and the pending construction of the Dreadnought class SSBNs is a huge chunk of the RN's budget pie that will leave little funding for other capabilities. Perhaps a debate should have happened years ago, what is more important for the UK's defence, a fast jet naval aviation capability or a SSBNs?

 

[swerve]

... as Iain Ballentine has pointed out, an analogue of the 1930s battlecruisers which proved impotent against big gunned battleships like the Bismarck.....

What 1930s battlecruisers?

The RN had three battlecruisers, commissioned 1916, 1916 & 1920, & only one of 'em met Bismarck or her like.

One of the others (smaller & weaker) met & fought Scharnhorst & Gneisenau simultaneously, & they turned & ran after Gneisenau's fire control was damaged & a turret put out of action.

 

[StobieWan]

There's not really a debate to be had there I'm afraid - the money is programmed into the core defence budget as part of a basket of requirements - if the requirement for a nuclear deterrent were abandoned, there's no direct link that could make that money go into the RN to be spent else where on ships or carriers or whatever.

It *might* happen or the money might all get spent on the NHS or something else.

Any discussion around "what if" is just that, it's a "what if we spent that money on something else"

 

[John Fedup]

If the core defence budget is set in stone I guess it won't be smooth sailing for the RN. Same applies for our navy. If our 15 CSCs ever get built there will be at least 6 on our West coast so maybe Canada should invite a RN carrier and Astute sub to Victoria.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm not saying it's set in stone - more that there's no expectation that if the deterrent were dropped, that the money would stay with defence and be available for some other purpose.

As I understand it, HMG rock up with a list of requirement, like "secure our borders" and "offer an expeditionary capability able to operate at remote distances without support for x days" etc. If one of those items is dropped, the money either gets removed from the budget as the requirement is no longer funded or the money gets plugged into some alternative means of providing the capability. For instance, on cancellation of Skybolt, the requirement was still there and the money went to Polaris. If Skybolt had been cancelled and no alternate capability had been sought, there's no guarantee that the funds would have been distributed to conventional forces - they might be but it's not a given.

 

[t68]

You have to start wondering if these carriers are worth the heartache for the RN if this propsell gets up.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41511790

The Royal Navy could lose its ability to assault enemy-held beaches under plans being considered in the Ministry of Defence, BBC Newsnight understands.

Two specialist landing ships - HMS Albion and Bulwark - would be taken out of service under the proposals.

The plan - part of a package of cost-cutting measures - has caused alarm among senior Royal Marine officers.

The MoD told the BBC that no decisions have been made yet and that discussion of options was "pure speculation".

It is understood the head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, formulated the move as part of a package designed to balance the books and free up sailors for the service's two new aircraft carriers.

Critics say the proposal would deprive the Royal Marines of their core mission.

Among other cuts envisaged are: a reduction of 1,000 to the strength of the Royal Marines, the early retirement of two mine-hunting vessels and one survey vessel.

Image copyright GETTY IMAGES
A senior Royal Marine officer blamed the introduction of the new carriers for exacerbating the senior service's financial and manning problems.

He told the BBC: "This is the worst procurement decision of the past half century, that's what the Royal Marines are being sacrificed for."

The proposed cuts are part of a raft of "adjustments" being considered by all three services - the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force - as the Ministry of Defence struggles to balance its books.

The Royal Air Force could slow down orders of its new F35 fighter, and the army lose dozens of helicopters as part of their efforts towards the same goal.

In 2015 there was a Strategic Defence and Security Review , a paper intended to act as a blueprint for the coming five years.

However the depreciation of sterling has made big buys of foreign equipment more expensive and the armed forces have crammed the programme with too many projects, creating a hole in the budget.

Image copyright EMPICS
The government announced "additional work to review national security capabilities" in July - a review by stealth - under the leadership of its national security adviser Mark Sedwill.

The proposed cuts to the Royal Navy have been put forward as part of this exercise.

Under the 1997 defence review, a group of ships was created to improve the UK's ability to land its commando brigade, even in the face of opposition.

 

[ASSAIL]

You have to start wondering if these carriers are worth the heartache for the RN if this propsell gets up.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41511790

For all those who promote a fixed wing carrier for the RAN this is what results. There is a fixed funding pie, it can be cut in a number of ways and if a carrier demands a huge slice the rest go hungry.

 

[t68]

For all those who promote a fixed wing carrier for the RAN this is what results. There is a fixed funding pie, it can be cut in a number of ways and if a carrier demands a huge slice the rest go hungry.

No don't agree with that 100%. It's goverment who set policy and funding streams it was goverment who gave authority for such projects its goverment who defines that future projects can fit in future budgets. I personally think its more of a case of too many systems needing to be replaced in too short a fiscal timeline.

Man power issues are seperate from future projects but still have to be managed as a whole.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ocean is due to be retired next year with no replacement and now the possible parking of the Albions that leaves the Bays and the Points to move material until the PoW arrives for aviation support. Is it just me or are we not repeating history. Seems like 1939 all over again for western militaries as our potential adversaries continue to improve and expand their capabilities.

 

[swerve]

At the beginning of 1939 the UK was working flat-out to expand its armed forces. It had started building up a couple of years earlier.

The Bays & Points are all we need for moving material. It's what they're designed for. What the Albions have is a command centre & the ability to get troops & their vehicles & weapons ashore quickly. They have much bigger docks than the Bays, & can also carry LCVPs on davits.

 

[Systems Adict]

You have to start wondering if these carriers are worth the heartache for the RN if this propsell gets up.....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-41511790

Have the fools at Whitehall brushed off one of former Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott's papers & sold it off as current policy ?

Albion & Bulwark - although construction commenced in the late 1990's, weren't commissioned until 2003 / 2005 & both have had multi-million pound refits, with Albion only returning to service earlier this year.

The Bay class LSD(A)'s were only commissioned between 2006 & 2007 & we've already flogged one of the x4 back in 2011.

I appreciate that it's been mooted that Ocean is being flogged to Brazil & Diligence was put up for sale in March this year, but the biggest issue for Carrier & the rest of the fleet is the retention of staff / having sufficient trained staff to operate the vessels in the current fleet.

If the proposal is to 'lay-up' a couple of the RFA's & move the staff across, then that ain't gonna fly, as the crew are mainly classed as 'merchant sailors', NOT full-blown RN.

Time for UK Govt PLC to start printing more cash to pay for this, before selling of the family silverware again to make payments on the Rolls-Royce in the driveway...

SA